Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

GAS: Who’s responsible for high gas prices?

Letter by Robert Brown, Fircrest on March 23, 2012 at 10:18 am with 119 Comments »
March 23, 2012 12:37 pm

I feel like the kid in the story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” in revealing this: Oil companies are responsible for high gas prices.

Yes, there are the usual arguments like the tension with Iran, internal troubles in Yemen and risk-averse commodities futures traders. But before prices had risen even five cents, Karl Rove and other Republicans were on the airwaves blaming President Barack Obama for the terrible conditions he had wrought, and how high gas prices were expected to go.

Obama has increased domestic production of oil, and demand for gas is down in the United States. There is no supply-and-demand reason for the high prices.

When the profits of the major oil companies are revealed in April for this fiscal quarter, expect another record setter for most of the oil companies. They do not need to charge us this much.

 

Leave a comment Comments → 119
  1. LornaDoone says:

    I expect all the regular talking points from all the regular sources.

  2. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Apple stock closed at $602. per share yesterday. Do you think they could give me a free new iPad 3?

    Surly, given the obscene profits at Apple, they don’t need to charge anything for anything anymore… of, at least, for a very long time.

    Apple 1Q profit (ending 12/ 31/11) profit: 13.1 Billion

    Exon/Mobil 4Q (ending 12/ 31/ 11) profit: 9.2 Billion.

    What do you think Apple’s 2Q and 3Q 2012 profits will be, with the release of Ip3? A lotta’ oil.

    And don’t tell me I don’t need an iPad 3!!!!

  3. Voxie, thanks for making Lorna’s point.

  4. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Drilling on federal land is DOWN under BHO. Stop repeating a lie.

    Production on private land is up, in spite of BHO and Chu.

    Nice pipeline to nowhere he just bragged about

  5. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Oh gawd, don’t tell me I have to explain a joke to you… again!!!

  6. Fibonacci says:

    concderned
    You did not dispute the fact that oil production is UP (who cares if it is public or private lane) and we are EXPORTING oil. Hey, maybe if we lowered taxes on the rich prices would come down, that seems to be the conservative answer to everything.

    But as we all know (id we listen to right wing nut jobs) it is Obama’s fault that as is high, since according to them EVERYTHING wrong in the world today is Obama’s fault. If we were all just nice little right wing lackeys the world would be a better place.

  7. concernedtacoma7 says:

    More half truths. We are an enormous IMPORTER of oil. We export some refined products, but no where near what we import as crude.

    I see you buy every piece of rhetoric that comes out of the admin. Funny, the markets are not buying it.

  8. old_benjamin says:

    Obama has in fact increased restrictions on drilling on public lands and has obstructed the Keystone pipeline.

    I care about both public and private drilling. They both contribute to the overall supply.

    I also care when a president takes credit where none is due and deliberately misrepresents the facts.

    Perhaps you’ve forgotten when everything was George Bush’s fault. It’s time you left-wing wackos get some of your own medicine.

  9. “Funny, the markets are not buying it.”

    And yet the Dow is up almost double from its low point.

  10. old_benjamin says:

    btw, the reason production is up is that the private sector continues to find new and better ways of extracting oil from the earth. Contrast that with Obama’s support of Solyndra and other government boondoggles that have cost billions and contributed nothing to our energy supply. A grade kid can figure it out, but the leftist loons continue their support for big government and big flops. Liberalism is a mental disease.

  11. LornaDoone says:

    Supply is up and demand is down. If the oil comes from private land or public land.

    Keystone is a “not in my backyard” issue. The backyard is Nebraska and the residents are fighting it because they don’t want the possibility of the aquafer being ruined. Tell those “liberal” farmers that you want an oil pipeline to endanger their water supply.

    Now putting all the regular talking points aside, oil companies can and will price fix. They have people in the market whose sole job is to drive the price up. Until we regain control of the oil companies (remember when there were more than four?), we’ll enjoy getting hosed accordingly.

    “Perhaps you’ve forgotten when everything was George Bush’s fault. It’s time you left-wing wackos get some of your own medicine.”

    So it WAS Bush’s fault?

  12. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I do rather enjoy how this issue has come ’round to bite the Dems in their collective buttocks, given how they so giddily played the blame card when oil prices rose during the Bush Administration. But the truth is that 0bama is not to blame for current high prices… not entirely anyway. Bad energy, fiscal, and foreign policy are his contributions. Commodities traders get the rest of the blame.

    I’d like Robert to tell me how oil companies can control any of the forgoing. Do they set energy policy? Do they have any influence over this president with regards to his frail foreign policy? Are they responsible for running-up the national debt, and printing dollars? Do they have plants in New York driving up futures prices at the Merc?

    Seems to me oil companies don’t have much control over government policy and the market, thus they would be just above consumers in the “blame” line.

    … before prices had risen even five cents, Karl Rove and other Republicans were on the airwaves blaming President Barack Obama for the terrible conditions he had wrought…

    Hyperbole much? ‘Cause I’d like to see proof of that.

    Obama has increased domestic production of oil…

    No… actually, “domestic production” on private land has increased in spite of him. And most of those operations were permitted during the Bush Administration.

    … and demand for gas is down in the United States.

    Read; recession.

    There is no supply-and-demand reason for the high prices.

    Well, actually there is. Commodities traders drive up the price of oil, even when supply increases and demand falls. The Energy Information Association recently cited an increased flow of investment money into commodities markets – money that used to be invested in real estate or the global stock market is now being invested in oil futures, not unlike what’s happening in the stock market. Where else you gonna’ put it?

    They do not need to charge us this much.

    At .60 cents a gallon for state and local taxes here in WA, I would agree.

  13. “Drilling on federal land is DOWN under BHO. Stop repeating a lie.”

    Total oil production on federal lands, 2011: 1,714,000 barrels per day.
    Total oil production on federal lands, 2008: 1,695,000 barrels per day.

    http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/CRSreport%20Oil%20Production.pdf

    Try again.

  14. old_benjamin says:

    Those of you who think the oil industry is so profitable, have your bought any oil stock lately? Remember when gas was under two bucks a gallon not so long ago? The industry is very volatile for a variety of reasons. It is far from a free market operation, being one of the most highly regulated industries in the world, and, at the same time, subject to the whim of OPEC. Check out Exxon’s profit margin. It isn’t high by comparison with other industries. Also consider the requirements of getting it to market. A gallon of gas at $4.00 is a steal compared to a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Go whine to Howard Schultz about that in your spare time.

  15. “Drilling on federal land is DOWN under BHO. Stop repeating a lie.
    Production on private land is up, in spite of BHO and Chu.”

    So is production is UP then?
    Stop repeating the lie.
    Yes or no?
    You are making LD’s point very well.

  16. “I do rather enjoy how this issue has come ’round to bite the Dems in their collective buttocks, given how they so giddily played the blame card when oil prices rose during the Bush Administration.”

    One problem with though, the ‘dems’ didn’t blame the failure bush, they rightfully blamed speculators, you cons of course blamed the evil dems.

    You lost then and you will lose again, as always.

  17. “Total oil production on federal lands, 2011: 1,714,000 barrels per day.
    Total oil production on federal lands, 2008: 1,695,000 barrels per day.”

    Thanks ehill, the truth is lost on the cons.

  18. “Perhaps you’ve forgotten when everything was George Bush’s fault. It’s time you left-wing wackos get some of your own medicine.”

    As your buddy said,
    “Stop repeating the lie”

  19. old_benjamin says:

    When the production of Twinkies goes up, does it go up because of or in spite of Michelle Obama?

  20. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Never fear, consumers, 0bama is now in favor of fast-tracking the pipeline from nowhere.

    That should help.

  21. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Kluw- yes, PRODUCTION ON PRIVATE LAND IS UP. FEDERAL DOWN. PRIVATE UP MORE THEN FED DOWN. Why is this hard for you to comprehend?

    Point is BHO is taking credit for something he had nothing to do with (in the positive sense).

    And remind me who was President in 2008? Not BHO.

    Those darn facts messing up the left’s failed ‘green’ agenda.

  22. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    One problem with though, the ‘dems’ didn’t blame the failure bush, they rightfully blamed speculators

    So… Bill O’Reilly is now a “dem”?

    Someone needs a selective memory refresher:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjigcS8gN04

    And guess who’s lingering, pacing around in the background – too funny.

  23. LornaDoone says:

    What is the difference between oil produced on private land and oil produced on public land? Do they process them separately? Is oil produced on private land not able to be sold?

    Obama isn’t taking credit for anything. Just pointing out that supply and demand isn’t the case with the current oil pricing issue. Low information providers try to provide low information for the low information citizens. They love to blame Obama for “lack of drilling” but…….they can’t, because it ain’t true!

  24. Once again the zombies point at Obama while ignoring the role of the oil companies, wall street speculators, and the international market.

    CT7,
    Oil imports are down, domestic production is up. Maybe if the oil companies did not export 2/3 or our domestically produced gasoline they could charge less. But that would be anti-capitalistic.

    Oil production on public lands is controlled by the oil companies who lease the land, not the Government.

  25. LornaDoone says:

    The Pelosi clip – “record dependence on foreign oil” is true. Now is that the fault of the Bush Administration? I guess we’ll never know because Cheney held the energy meetings behind closed doors with Bush not there.

    Fast forward – we are using less foreign oil today. That’s part of the “change” in “hopey changy”

  26. concernedtacoma7 says:

    We are using less oil because of the prolonged BHO recession and a mild winter.

    Hope and blame.

  27. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I think the confusion in the CRS report lies in the following:

    First it says: About 96% of the increase since 2007 took place on non-federal lands, but the federal share of total U.S. production only fell by about 2 percentage points (2007 – 2011).

    You should first keep in mind they’re using 2007 as their base year. And they’re saying the current federal-land share of total production has fallen by 2% since 2007. Obviously, any decline would have to include one of the Bush Administrations years (2008).

    And then it says: On federal lands, there was also an increase in production from 2008-2009 and another increase in 2010 (258,000 b/d), then a decline in 2011. Overall, oil production on federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007.

    Which is what the graph shows.

    But looking at the graph, the most revealing stat is how federal off-shore and non-federal production has significantly diverged since the federal off-shore peak in 2010. And where have oil prices been going since 2010?

    Otherwise, US total production is up, thanks mostly to current rates of non-federal production, and federal on-shore has remained absolutely flat since 2007 – which the graph also clearly shows. Therefore, one can easily point to 0bama’s off-shore moratoriums and bans as having a direct effect on total US production since 2010.

    Does this affect the cost of gas at the pump today? Hard to say. But if I were a player in the oil futures market, I’d feel a lot differently about the affect of supply on the current price if off-shore production was at 2010 levels. So his energy policies are definitely NOT helping.

  28. LornaDoone says:

    “a mild winter”

    I’ve been waiting for this.

    We had above average snow and snow later than usual. Sorry, we you clowns like to use minute examples for climate change, they must be applicable for this.

    “recession”. So people used more gas “because they could”? LOL

  29. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    … we you clowns…

    Which is it?

    Never mind, Judy Collins says hello:

    Sorry my dear!
    And where are the clowns
    Send in the clowns
    Don’t bother, they’re here.

  30. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Our favorite music man just showed that he is off his meds and knows zero about the economy or energy.

  31. “Same source. Try again.”

    I see someone didn’t bother to read the source data, did they? LOL

  32. “PRODUCTION ON PRIVATE LAND IS UP. FEDERAL DOWN.”

    That’s not true no matter how many times you repeat it.

  33. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    “PRODUCTION ON PRIVATE LAND IS UP. FEDERAL DOWN.”

    That’s not true no matter how many times you repeat it.

    Nor is that since federal production is down, considerably, since 2010.

    “I see someone didn’t bother to read the source data, did they? LOL”

  34. pantomancer says:

    Funny, when the cowboy was prez it was all his and Cheney’s fault. I remember Bobo talking about a teacher who loved her job but had to quit because couldn’t afford the gas to drive. It was $1.87 a gallon. Hmmmm

  35. The good news is that, under Obama, oil production is at an 8-year peak, demand is down, imports are down and exports are increasing.

    http://www.ogj.com/articles/2012/01/api-reports-oil-production-up-product-demand-down-in-2011.html

    “US crude oil production rose 2.5% year-to-year in 2011 to an average 5.6 million b/d as petroleum product demand fell 1.2% to 18.9 million b/d, the American Petroleum Institute reported. Crude and petroleum product imports dropped 5.6% from their 2010 average to 11.1 million b/d, while product exports grew 25.5% to an average 3 million b/d, API said in its yearend statistics.

    “The figures suggested growing US exploration and production strength. Crude production… (was)… at an 8-year peak. ”

    Interesting how an 8-year peak can be construed as a decline by some people.

  36. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Tuddo- read the comments above yours. Incredible how the left lies and ignores the hard truth. Oil production is up in spite of BHO. The areas he can affect, federal land, have less drilling now, directly slowed by his admin.

    Keep believing his propaganda, anyone with an IQ over a carrot can see through the BS.

    Left- Stick to social issues, you have a more convincing (yet equally wrong) stance on those distractions/rhetoric.

  37. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    tuddo, since you’re a new fan of the API, I thought you might appreciate their view of 0bama taking credit for the overall increase in oil production:

    http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/vol-110/issue-3b/general-interest/industry-groups-dispute.html

    “The report conveniently avoids the nearly 15% decrease in oil production on federal lands,” Kathleen Sgamma, vice-president of government and public affairs for the Western Energy Alliance in Denver, said on Mar. 13.
    This administration has made energy development on western federal lands increasingly difficult, time consuming, and cost prohibitive, which will affect production far into the future,” she maintained. “Redundant regulation and bureaucratic obstacles have constrained domestic energy development, job creation, and economic growth in communities across the West.”

    “I keep hearing about an all-of-the-above strategy, but I don’t hear one that includes oil and gas,” Erik Milito, the American Petroleum Institute’s upstream director, told reporters during a Mar. 13 teleconference. “I’m discouraged to hear Sec. Salazar say we have to bow down to world markets when we have so many domestic resources waiting to be developed if the policies are improved.”

    He said Obama’s administration says its policies have supported more oil development and production is rising, but most of the increases relate to projects begun before it came into office as well as what’s happening on state and private lands.

    “Here’s the problem: The administration has been restricting where oil and natural gas development may occur, leasing less often, shortening lease terms, going slow on permit approvals, and increasing or threatening to increase industry’s development costs through higher taxes, higher royalty rates, higher minimum lease bids, and ineffective regulations and regulatory processes,” Milito said.

  38. “We are using less oil because of the prolonged BHO recession and a mild winter.”

    You forgot the most important reason—A 34% increase in fuel efficiency of U.S. cars from 1980 to present, thanks to the CAFE standards, which Republicans fought tooth and nail every step of the way.

    Thank the Dems plus foreign competition that we’re all able to drive more than 14 miles on four bucks worth of gas these days.

  39. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    thanks to the CAFE standards, which Republicans fought tooth and nail every step of the way.

    That’s funny… coulda’ sworn Gerald Ford sponsored CAFÉ standards in 1975.

    Oh year, he did.

    So you can thank him… and the Arab oil embargo.

  40. So, if oil production is down, then it is Obama’s fault. If it is up, it is in spite of Obama. Interesting how that works, isn’t?

    Note that my comment said “under Obama”, not “because” of Obama. Oil permits have risen rapidly and production has increased in the last year because speculative forces have given oil producers increased incentives that they can sell their oil for higher prices.

    The US drills crude, refines it and exports a lot of products made from it. We also refine a lot of imported crude for domestic as well as export. For a while, because of the recession, new oil drilling slowly declined because of surpluses worldwide due to global recession. Now that business is picking up and Iranian oil is not available to most European and Asian countries, oil drilling and production will be booming again.

    I don’t think all the hysteria and finger pointing on the right or any patting on the back by Obama supporters is worth a bucket of warm drilling mud. Obama has little to do with gas prices at the pump when they go up or when they go down.

    Last year the US was a net exporter of both crude and refined oil for the first time in over 20 years. Obama had little to do with that, either.

    Speculation and higher prices worldwide force refiners to charge more for refined products here, or they would all be sold overseas. It is a competitive market, just like Republicans want. If you don’t like high prices when speculation on the world markets runs rampant, nationalize oil.

    In the near future, the world trade sanctions on Iran will have a lot more to do with domestic and worldwide oil production, oil prices and gasoline prices than Obama will ever have.

  41. “federal production is down, considerably, since 2010.”

    But up since Bush was president.

  42. “Incredible how the left lies and ignores the hard truth.”

    Nope. Nothing new here.

  43. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Tuddo- why do you keep bringing up exports? That is rhetoric, or flat dishonest.

    30 years ago we imported 28% of our consumption. Today it is over 60%. Thank you EPA, progressives, etc for making other nations rich.

    We export refined products and some crude (a tiny amount compared to what we import) based on logistics, not US demand.

  44. Congress is responsible! they have the power to regulated gas prices they also can afford to buy it and as long as it regulated by those who can afford its stock prices will never come down no matter who’s president. As far as the old supply and demand BS according to this article http://finance.yahoo.com/news/first-gas-other-fuels-top-200739135.html it’s not a problom, Also the BS that more drilling will help is another of conresses lies according to this article http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/​article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2​F03%2F22%2FMNE51NO6PT.DTL

  45. alindasue says:

    concernedtacoma7 said, “30 years ago we imported 28% of our consumption. Today it is over 60%.”

    If that is the case, then why are we exporting oil? Why is there such a drive to push through a cross-country pipeline that’s main purpose is to deliver oil from Canada to a port in Texas that exports to places off the continent?

  46. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Alindasue, we export a tiny amount of crude. The amount is insignificant, and part of the free market. Educate me why this is relevant. The irony here is Bill Orielly has the same concern about exports as Tuddo and yourself.

    Oil refined in America means US jobs, taxes, and our sense of environmental responsibility.

    Why turn it away and let the Chinese have it? Refine it? Pipelines bring revenues to US landowners, jobs to Americans, and taxes paid here.

  47. The US Is A Net Oil Exporter And More Drilling Didn’t Drop Gas Prices

    A statistical analysis of 36 years of oil production shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.

    since 2009 domestic oil production has increased 15% while U.S. gasoline prices have surged from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58.

    domestic oil production decreased steadily under the Bush administration and only increased after Obama took office.

    And here’s something most Americans don’t know, and the Republicans certainly won’t tell them: The US is now a net exporter of fuel. Last year, we “exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported in 2011 for the first time since 1949.” And that is the whole purpose of the Keystone XL pipeline. If they just wanted all that oil refined for the domestic market, there are refineries in the Midwest that could do that (and Keystone I, the first phase of the project, already takes huge amounts of tar sands oil there). They want the oil to go all the way to the Gulf Coast because those are ports from which the oil is exported.

    http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/03/23/fact-check-net-oil-exporter-drilling-drop-gas-prices-103271/

  48. we export a tiny amount of crude. The amount is insignificant, and part of the free market. Educate me why this is relevant.

    Your sense of “tiny” and “insignificant” are a little off….

    Shipments of gasoline, diesel fuel and other products surpassed imports by an average of 439,000 barrels a day in 2011, according to the department. Last year was the first time since 1949 that the U.S. was a net exporter. Crude-oil output exceeded 2 billion barrels for the first time since 2003.

    “The U.S. has become the fastest-growing oil and natural- gas producing area of the world,” Edward L. Morse, Citigroup’s New York-based head of global commodities research, and half a dozen colleagues wrote in the report. Greater output from Canada and a rebound in Mexico point to bigger increases in North American production “than all of OPEC can sustain.”

    ibid.

  49. harleyrider1 says:

    Not withstanding everyone who plays a role in gas prices, I watched our Secretary of Energy, appointed by the President mind you, say he wanted “higher gas prices” on TV, twice this week. You may have to. He said it would force Americans to move away from gasoline cars.

    When a it is the formal policy of a sitting President, we usually get what he wants.

    One can make all sorts of arguments here, but this was not a misquote – I saw and heard him saying it. Twice.

    So, with that being policy, the only reason now to pretend it isn’t, or to try to defend it, is simply to get votes. Re-election time.

  50. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    bB, again, you’re being a bit disingenuous here. While it’s true we’ve become a net exporter of finished petroleum products – which includes not just gasoline, but jet fuel, kerosene, ethylene, butane, propylene, liquified petroleum gas, etc, etc – we are still by far and away a net crude oil importer.

    We are exporting about 35,000 b/d of crude, and importing about 9,000,000 b/d. ct7’s exact quote is “we export a tiny amount of crude”, which is undeniably true, the key word being “crude”. And even if you combine finished and crude, the claim we are a “net exporter” still doesn’t fly. We do not export anywhere near 9 Million barrels of “oil” per day. We do export approximately 3.2 million b/d of refined petroleum products, but we also import approximately 2.2 million b/d of same. This makes us a net exporter of approximately 1.035 b/d of finished product, while at the same time we’re a net importer of 8.065 b/d of crude oil.

    Thus, we are a net exporter of finished petroleum products, only – not crude.

    BTW, the 35,000 barrels of crude are exported primarily from Alaska to Asia simply because it’s cheaper to import oil from Canada and Mexico than it is to bring crude down from AK, thus it sells for more in the Asian markets.

  51. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    tuddo, I agree with everything you say in your 9:55 PM post… except the last paragraph.

    While I greatly enjoy giving it back to my liberal friends, here, for the “blame Bush” for everything mentality as a result of the shoe being on the other foot just four short years ago, I don’t think all of the blame can be placed on an administration’s energy policies.

    But at the same time, I’m not prepared to agree that energy policy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and domestic policy affecting the economy do not have anything to do with the price of oil. They absolutely do. And, in this case, most of the forgoing are poles apart from the previous administration. Therefore, when Nancy Pelosi blames “high” ($3.89 p/g) gas prices on the Bush administration’s “failed energy policy”, does it not leave this administration open to the same blame?

    So pardon me while I have a little more fun with this.

  52. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    “The U.S. has become the fastest-growing oil and natural- gas producing area of the world,” Edward L. Morse, Citigroup…

    Hmmmm, wonder why that is.

    Petroleum production from oil shale has turned North Dakota into a major domestic oil producer, with production rising to 424,000 barrels a day in July 2011 from 98,000 barrels a day in 2005.

    Oil from oil shale has also reversed what looked like the inevitable production declines for older fields in states such as Texas. Oil production there had tumbled from 2.6 million barrels a day in 1980 to 1.9 million in 1989 and down to 1.087 million in 2008. But instead of continuing its march toward zero, production in Texas edged back up in 2009 to 1.106 million barrels a day and to 1.169 million in 2010.
    Jim Jubak, MSN/ Money

    Now remind me again, what is the liberal position on obtaining, refining, and burning oil from oil shale?

    Oh yeah, environmental no-no, political yes-yes.

  53. Haaa! Here we go again! Everyone’s an expert on petroleum!

    Just the other day I read right here in this paper where people were buying less gas to combat the high prices. IF that were the truth, how come I still work 11 to 14 hours a day dropping the stuff into underground tanks to keep you people mobile? Our work load hasn’t lessened one bit!

    Big deal if the prices increase. They will anyway! If it goes up a full dollar a gallon that is only 15 bucks more for my vehicle. So much for that after gas trip to McDonalds or the latte stand! Thats about all it amounts to anyway!

    People will sell their houses for gas money before they walk their lazy butts anywhere.

  54. Ahh and this might be a good place to offer this public service suggestion, since I see it on a daily basis.

    That fuel truck that so many of you like to play games around? Speed up to prevent a lane change the second you see the turn signal….cut in front of then slam on your brakes….Stupid stuff like that? (Yes it happens countless times around here, every day.)

    Weel that fuel tanker weighs right around 90,000 lbs…and carries roughly the explosive equivalent of 12,000 sticks of dynamite.

    Just something for you folks to think about while your making sure you are first.

  55. Production of oil is UP under President Obama.

    To say anything else is a complete lie.
    Even the cons agree.

  56. menopaws says:

    Grow up people!!!! The oil companies are in charge of prices………making record profits and doing their very best to get rid of the President who refuses to allow unrestricted or regulated drilling along the Gulf Coast……….They want to do as they damn well please and they don’t like having a President who makes them pay lots of money for fouling the shores of Louisana……….NBC last night did a story about how their mess is still impacting sea life…….dolphins dying with lung issues. So, surprise all of us and quit reciting the party line…….do your homework–the Party that still defends the HUGE tax break known as the oil depletion allowance is bought and paid for by their lobbyists………….I am just tired of every damn thing being Obama’s fault…….The oil industry is pumping out OUR oil and shipping it to China and India……..Don’t any of you read the newspapers?

  57. “That’s funny… coulda’ sworn Gerald Ford sponsored CAFÉ standards in 1975.”

    And now you should tell us what bush the failure did with those CAFE standards when he first took office.
    You won’t do that though will you? That would take honesty and you cons do not even know what honest means.

    “Oh dear” is right.

  58. “Why is there such a drive to push through a cross-country pipeline that’s main purpose is to deliver oil from Canada to a port in Texas that exports to places off the continent?”

    Because the GOP desperately needs a hammer to use on the President during the election since their ONLY hope, the economy, has gotten better despite their best efforts to keep it down (they can’t even do that right!).
    The GOP knows the facts and the truth about the pipeline not only won’t matter to their ‘base’ they know none of them are smart enough to figure it out let alone care.

  59. averageJoseph says:

    Well, at least they are predictable. Predictabley hypocrits. LOL at the talking head Obama excuse makers.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qKdScVerrBU&vg=medium

  60. Vox, you may not agree with the link between sanctions on Iran and oil prices, but the speculators surely do. Here’s an article from Reuters yesterday (Friday) you might find interesting:

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/uk-iran-sanctions-consequences-idUKBRE82M0WT20120323

    “Already Iran’s oil exports appear to have fallen this month by some 300,000 barrels per day (bpd), or 14 percent, the first sizeable drop in shipments this year, according to estimates from industry consultant Petrologistics and an oil company.

    Oil rose sharply on the news, with Brent jumping to over $127 (79.99 pounds) a barrel, up almost $4 from the day’s low.”

    I don’t really see a difference in Republican’s plans on Iran and Obama’s, but the candidates sure like to pummel Obama for doing the exact things they say they would do. The war talk is a little more subdued because Obama is a sitting president and his words create instant chaos on world markets if he talks about war.

    Here, from Romney’s website criticizing Obama for Obama’s policy on Iran is his policy (which to me sounds exactly what Obama has said, diplomacy, sanctions, and then “all options are on the table”). We are now at the “crippling sanctions” stage from Obama.

    Romney: “Well, it’s worth putting in place crippling sanctions. It’s worth working with the insurgents in the country to encourage regime change in the country. And if all else fails, if after all of the work we’ve done, there’s nothing else we could do besides mil — take military action, then of course you take military action.”

  61. “Well, at least they are predictable. Predictabley hypocrits.”

    You got that right, it was never bushs fault when gas was 5 bucks a gallon, it was the evil ‘libs’ and now it’s still the evil ‘libs’.
    In fact everything bad in the universe is the fault of the ‘libs’ and everything good is the results of tax cuts and the great ‘cons’.

    Hypocrites indeed.

  62. Scottc51 says:

    Unfortunately for all of you, we have a free market system and the oil companies will sell to the highest bidder. If you want to change that, then elect Hugo Chavez. He would just send in the military and take over the oil companies.
    We have run our debt to China to a place where we cannot compete with the prices at the levels that we want. This is just the beginning. Until our country actually steps up and balances our budget, this gets worse.

  63. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Didn’t say that tuddo – maybe I wasn’t very clear. And I already read the Reuter’s piece, but thanks for posting the quote.

    I absolutely agree the situation in Iran is a contributing factor to increased speculation. And while I would say that, outwardly at least, the current policy toward Iran is not diametrically opposed to previous policies, I also think the current policy has diverged significantly enough from previous administrations (Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and even Carter) in that the threat of any sort of military action against Iran – for any deserving reason – from the 0bama administration is not viewed as very credible by the mullahs.

    But the mere fact that an administration has to deal with… has a policy toward a hostile, oil rich country alone means that an administration – any administration – can have an effect on the price of oil.

    Does Romney’s statement make the mullas shake in their sandals? Probably not. And would military action against Iran make a difference in the cost of oil? Not likely at first, but in the long run it could.

    Who knows, and I think that’s the point.

    But it’s still too much fun to play the blame game in reverse with you libs. And by the looks of some of the highly intelligent responses here alone, it works.

    Got the right shoe on the left foot, too funny!

  64. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    And would military action against Iran make a difference in the cost of oil? Not likely at first, but in the long run it could.

    I should amend that to read that, of course, military action would likely drive-up the cost of oil immediately. But depending on the outcome of such action, in time, prices would return to present levels. And maybe with new, or at least restrained, Iranian leadership, we could even see prices fall.

    Could.

  65. “we could even see prices fall.”

    But history shows we won’t.

  66. “how come I still work 11 to 14 hours a day dropping the stuff into underground tanks to keep you people mobile?”

    Maybe you’re not very efficient.

  67. menopaws says:

    New adminstration in Iran would make prices fall—-where have we heard that piece of overripe fantasy before………..????? Oil revenues would pay for the war in Iraq according to Paul Wolfwitz and Dick Cheney….Let’s take some down time from starting wars in the Middle East until we pay these wars off. It is simply stunning that Republicans are beating the war drum again—-If they were actually going to get off their smug asses to fight the war themselves, it would be one thing. But, since they are now trying to balance the budget by cutting veterans benefits—-who do they think is going to deploy over there for this next sick ADVENTURE??? We need to be independent from foreign oil—I watched CNN Money the other day. According to the oil industry estimates—we could be the world’s second largest producer of oil within the next decade, courtesy of the shale oil drilling……..I’d rather gut this price gouging out than go to war again in the Middle East. When Romney or Santorum puts on a uniform—we’ll talk. Just like Wolfwitz and Cheney—lots of big talk from men who NEVER served.

  68. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Ok MP, then we need permits, pipelines, and the EPA/environmentalists to get out of the way.

    And BHO made Afghanistan his war, started a fight in Libya, Uganda, etc. Where are the remarks on his lack of service?

  69. menopaws says:

    Listen–the last President who served this country with real honor was Bush Senior……Jr. strutted his stuff with the National Guard and was never deployed……Clinton got a deferment—Obama was too young to ever serve in any but the Gulf War and we ABOLISHED the draft……Actually, he may have actually been too old by then—Reagan was 4F in world War 2 because he was deaf in one ear………They all talk big–but this time, Obama is trying to put the brakes on and all those Righties want to kiss up to Nethanyu and bomb away–then drill…….The fight in Libya–not one boot on the ground and he built a solid coalition with NATO……Afghanistan–he is getting seriously snookered by those idiot Generals left after Rumsfeld retired the ones who wouldn’t kiss his ass…….So, he did not serve—but he has been a lot more cautious and successful than either Bush Jr. or Clinton in the battles he chooses for us—not the ones he inherited…….No more blood should be wasted over there and that is what he is trying to do—Israel wants to bomb–not our issue or our problem…….

  70. menopaws says, “I am just tired of every damn thing being Obama’s fault……”

    I’m just gonna venture a W. A. Guess here and wonder what side of the fence “menopaws” was sitting when everything was G W Bush’s fault!

    Boy, that guy caught the heat for everything from natural disasters, to speaking English (of course around here people are too dumb to figure out they speak a little different in OTHER parts of the country!), and I have no doubt if someone left the toilet seat up in Minnesota, it was Bush’s fault if he was in Arizona!

    Aint politics FUN!

  71. Kluwer says, “You got that right, it was never bushs fault when gas was 5 bucks a gallon, it was the evil ‘libs’ and now it’s still the evil ‘libs’.
    In fact everything bad in the universe is the fault of the ‘libs’ and everything good is the results of tax cuts and the great ‘cons’.”

    Of course kluwer, we know you were being sarcastically tongue in cheek….but Congratulations!! For Once you are right! ;)

  72. Oh by the way kluwer….when, during the Bush administration, was gas ever “5 bucks a gallon”?

  73. CT7,
    US does not export Crude – it exports gasoline, diesel fuel, and other refined oil products.

    Gas and other products refined from Canadian Tar Sands are destined to go to China and on the international market, and will not remain in the US unless we are willing to outbid others on the international market.

    A bill in the House to require products refined from crude transported in US pipelines remain in the US was blocked by the GOP.

    Vox – military action against Iraq was supposed to solve our energy needs. How well did that work?

  74. LornaDoone says:

    I ran a search “$5 per gallon gasoline” – here’s a couple of sites that showed up on Bing:

    Yikes! Gasoline to hit $5 per gallon in 2011?
    Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author …
    http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/246805$5

    gas: Is it around the corner for US drivers this summer …
    Apr 29, 2011 · So far, the idea of gasoline at $5 per gallon is a worry, not a national reality. But could pump prices actually get there? A few analysts say so, and the …
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/0429/5-gas-Is-it-around-the-corner...

    Now when a couple of fine publications like World Net Daily and CS Monitor predict $5 gas and it didn’t happen (2011), that must mean that Obama did one heck of a great job in stopping gasoline from hitting $5 per gallon.

  75. LornaDoone says:

    I think if you’ll look, you’ll find pictures of gasoline over $5 per gallon, during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. Does that count?

    Oh, heck. I’m wrong.

    February 2012

    http://news.yahoo.com/photos/prices-rise-above-5-gallon-premium-gas-shell-photo-221259219.html

  76. LornaDoone says:

    Oh…you wanted to know when during the Bush Adminstration. OK.

    Post-Katrina and

    3/28/02 – Gas prices in California are at an all-time high. The statewide average price for a gallon of regular is now 58 cents more per gallon, than the same time last year.

    But, there is one place on the Central Coast where you can expect to pay more than $5 a gallon. The Americo gas station in the tiny coastal town of Gorda, about 40 miles south of Big Sur, is selling gasoline for $5.19 a gallon for regular, and $5.39 for premium.

  77. Ahhh well then, we all stand corrected then LornaD..Of course you leave out the fact that five buck gas in the aftermath of Katrina wasn’t Bush’s fault, it was simple local gouging in the aftermath of a disaster. But then of course we all know Katrina was Bush’s fault, so I suppose there could be a connection there.

    We all know that Ol’ George was sitting round Crawford, chewin’ on a piece of alfalfa with his boots up on the coffee table thinking…”Hmmm, ya’ll know, I could start me a big ol’ hirricane down there n fix them dang southern demicrats ya’ll know!”

    You goofball. blinded Liberals just cant stand the fact that your hero Ozbama, is spending this country into the sewer! You’ll take ANY possible improvement in anything, get on your knees facing East, and bow to the great and powerful Oz! Sheesh!

    Time to pull the heads out, wake up and save this country before we havent got one anymore!

  78. “Ok MP, then we need permits, pipelines, and the EPA/environmentalists to get out of the way.”

    That rightwing tripe just doesn’t fly anymore.

  79. “A bill in the House to require products refined from crude transported in US pipelines remain in the US was blocked by the GOP.”

    Legislation that would help the nation, help the middle class, and help the economy recover being blocked by the conservatives?
    Imagine that.

  80. “Ahhh well then, we all stand corrected”

    Of course you do, every single day on every single topic.

    Thanks LD for finding the facts, I paid over 5 bucks for quite some time in CA and other parts of the country and the price of diesel was higher and stayed high.

  81. “Time to pull the heads out, wake up and save this country before we havent got one anymore!”

    We already did and he will be re-elected in Nov.
    When will you cons join in and do something FOR the country and not against it?

  82. menopaws says:

    It wasn’t Bush’ fault on his watch and it is not Obama’s fault either. It is the fault of the oil companies—and we need to pressure those morons in Congress to take away some of their tax breaks (oil depletion allowance). We all need to grow up and face some hard facts—oil companies care about profits only—-pain at the pump means nothing to them……And, our government, outside of tapping the oil reserves, has NO control, legally over them. This is the “free market” everyone insists is soooo damn important. And, those oil reserves are very important incase there is a massive problem in the Middle East. So, you are being held hostage by Exxon and BP—not one politician can do one damn thing under current laws. I may support Obama but I know it wasn’t Bush’s fault either—this marketplace is run by the oil companies…..Just like Wall street and the banks, health care and the insurance companies…….You want free market capitalism—this is what you get. Enjoy!

  83. LornaDoone says:

    Dcr – go read your own challenge question.

    “when, during the Bush administration, was gas ever “5 bucks a gallon”?

  84. LornaDoone says:

    As the the gouging post-Katrina, I believe THAT is something that the President and other elected officials CAN do something about. There are law against it, but they have to be enforced.

  85. It wasn’t Bush’ fault on his watch and it is not Obama’s fault either.

    But menopaws…..aren’t you breaking the partisan code here by not blaming everything on the other guys’ guy?

  86. After the Depression, several laws were passed to regulate markets in order to prevent another economic collapse. One was the Commodities Exchange Act of 1936, which for the first time put limits on speculative traders to prevent them from dominating commodities futures markets. People directly involved in agriculture and food production could still participate in the futures market at will, but outside speculators had limits placed on the amount they could trade. This allowed speculators to provide needed liquidity to the markets while avoiding speculative bubbles.
    Deregulation and Consequences

    These limits were maintained until the 1990s when the CFTC began to issue “no action” letters to major commodity speculators saying that the agency would take no action if they passed the speculation limits. The passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) in 2000 further deregulated commodity markets.

    Pressure from speculators and the administration’s (Clinton) predisposition towards deregulation led to changes in commodities laws – changes that, while appearing small at the time, have had profound effects on food and energy prices today. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CTFC), which had been created in 1974 to regulate commodity futures, fashioned loopholes that allowed outside speculators to trade unlimited amounts in commodities with almost no oversight or regulation.

    Negative results from these loopholes were first seen when Enron took advantage and traded huge amounts of energy futures, artificially driving up prices while creating huge profits for itself. One of the loopholes has been named the “Enron loophole.”Hedge fund manager Michael Masters recently testified before Congress on this issue. He said that institutional investors (pension funds, university endowments, sovereign wealth funds, etc.) have increased their investments in commodities futures from $13 billion in 2003 to $317 billion in July 2008, and the prices of 25 commodities have risen by an average of 183 percent in those five years. He explained that “commodities futures prices are the benchmark for the prices of actual physical commodities, so when … speculators drive futures prices higher, the effects are felt immediately in … the real economy.” I wish people would just do some independent research instead of taking CNN and FOX news at face value. Write the government, tell them to repeal the deregulation.

  87. concernedtacoma7 says:

    BB- you missed the partisan language. Oil companies, banks, capitalism, freedom, are all GOP created ‘problems’ and terrible for America.

    Let’s nationalize the oil companies!! Make them sell the products here, at a price set the govt!!

    Ridiculous, and thoroughly unAmerican.

  88. menopaws says:

    Mathius—Absolutely fascinating and very, very helpful. I learned a lot about how and why we got here and thank you for some good info. Beer Boy—Believe it or not—I do know the difference between spin and reality……..Neither Bush nor Obama is at blame here…….People need to take some of these facts and call their reps. in Congress…….Easy to blame—harder to understand that it’s a law that needs to be changed……Just like Glass-Siegel and the banks—-we need that law again…..the best post here is Mathius—real history to this problem.

  89. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Mathis, if one watches Fox Business or even Bill Orielly you would see the talking heads discussing that very issue. To summarize they were calling for limited on trade size.

  90. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    But, there is one place on the Central Coast where you can expect to pay more than $5 a gallon. The Americo gas station in the tiny coastal town of Gorda, about 40 miles south of Big Sur…

    You’re a few weeks late for this one:

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/28/gas-prices-around-5-00-on-long-island/

    … I paid over 5 bucks for quite some time in CA…

    No you didn’t.

  91. sandblower says:

    Bush policies actually did cause a price rise in 2003 or 2004 when they chose to put more into the national emergency reserves when it was not necessary or when supply was already low. Look it up.
    There is a big difference and everyone needs to know the difference.
    Blaming Obama or Bush otherwise is ridiculous.

  92. Dale – you are correct, Oil companies are not concerned about anything but profits. I don’t understand why these non-patriotic, amoral entities are supposed to be given all sorts of advantages by our nation when it is clear that they will have no compunction to turn around and put forward business policies that do not benefit our nation in the least.

  93. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    … we need to pressure those morons in Congress to take away some of their (oil companies) tax breaks…

    Yes… because we don’t want to encourage oil and gas exploration, and we Like paying higher prices at the pump.

    The percentage depletion deduction is already off limits to major oil companies; currently only independent producers and royalty owners can claim the deduction on U.S. production, and only up to the first 1,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent. So while libs love to paint this with a broad brush, the truth is only a very small percentage of oil producers qualify for this deduction.

    Oil companies are already paying 95 million a day in taxes, royalties, bonus bids and other fees, and that’s just to the federal government. And, as has been explained ad-nauseum, the tax breaks for which big oil companies are eligible are the equivalent of depreciation taxes in all other businesses.

    But still, the libs would have them eliminated. And for what? Why a net increase in revenue to the federal government of 4 billion dollars – truly, a drop in the bucket in terms of the deficit. And there’s little assurance the 4 bil would even be applied to the deficit. And let’s not forget the inevitable off-sets to such “added revenue”; reduced revenue due to job loss and reduced production taxes, as well as lower revenue from future royalties, bonus bids, and fees.

    Eliminating tax deductions for oil companies would lead to less exploration and higher prices at the pump – period.

    You want free market capitalism—this is what you get. Enjoy!

    And the alternative is… what? Socialism? Communism? Fascism? Some kind of mixture of the foregoing with capitalism? What would you prefer? What’s your “solution” to your perceived evils of the free market? (Don’t let that pesky Constitution thing get in the way of your answer.)

  94. “And the alternative is… what? Socialism? Communism? Fascism? Some kind of mixture of the foregoing with capitalism? What would you prefer?”

    Seems you conservatives have chosen fascism.

  95. Yes… because we don’t want to encourage oil and gas exploration, and we Like paying higher prices at the pump.

    You are making an unsupported assumption that the “low” prices we a currently paying would go even higher if the tax breaks were removed.

  96. Why is it that you neo-liberal “free” market folks keep insisting that corporations couldn’t be bothered with making ginormous profits if the government didn’t help out (subsidies, almost free leases of huge tracts of land, tax breaks, etc.) and still claim to be for a “free” market?

  97. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Unsupported? Irrespective of current speculation-driven high prices, under which scenario would oil prices drop:

    1) Removal of tax deductions leading to higher cost of, or less exploration, or
    2) removal of tax (depreciation) deductions leading to higher operating expenses?

    I know you “artsy” types aren’d too business oriented, but are you really so naive as to believe businesses do not pass on to consumers 100% of expenses – including taxes (with the exception of B&O)? And what typically happens when incentives to enhance supply are removed?

    Maybe you could provide “support” to the contrary.

  98. Supply and demand. When they slow down the supply the price goes.If we reduced our demand through various conservation method the price would drop. They would be tripping all over themselves to get our business back. When they squeeze us, we should squeeze back.

  99. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Why is it that you liberal free market foes keep insisting that the arts and things like “alternative/ green energy” R&D couldn’t survive if the government didn’t help out (subsidies, set-asides, tax breaks, etc.) and still claim to be against tax breaks for corporations who are primarily footing the bill?

  100. Should read….”When they slow down the supply the price goes up.” There’s nothing new about artificial shortages. Our reply should be an artificial shortage of our own. Don’t drive around crying about it. Do something!

  101. The only people making a case for keeping subsidies to oil and coal producers are the energy producers themselves and their lobbyists.

    The subsidies include 70% deduction for all costs for drilling, and that includes the large companies, too. There is another 100% tax writeoff for the smaller companies, not just deduction. There is a 6% tax writeoff on profits for any domestic oil production and a slew of 100-year-old tax breaks and incentives applied to all coal and oil companies (Rockefeller owned both, remember).

    Here is a fairly straightforward article that outlines the current situation fairly well without taking sides:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html?_r=1

    The very influential and conservative Heritage Foundation argues for “eliminating subsidies for all forms of energy, even it if means slowing development of cleaner-burning fuel sources.”

    Most industry analysts say that petroleum and coal survive just fine in places where there are no subsidies. They are unsure about alternative energy sources because they are so new.

    The key debate in Congress is whether or not we should have a policy that encourages cleaner and more sustainable energy sources and at what level the government should use its power to support or subsidize energy production.

    The answer ranges from the most capitalist, “no support for any private company or policy to encourage one type of energy over another” to the progressive, “only support new and untried sources until they can make it on their own”.

    Since the right has effectively blocked other ways to encourage cleaner fuels, like cap and trade (even though they were the ones who first proposed that solution), I support the encouragement of research and development in cleaner fuels by the government plus subsidies to those companies producing such for a maximum 100-year period, just like the oil and gas companies got.

  102. menopaws says:

    You want to pucker up to Enron and BP–go ahead…..The free market doesn’t mean NO regulation. Or do you want to go back to the banking collapse of 2008???? Capitalism may mean profit—it doesn’t mean it is okay to destroy the marketplace while you reap your profits…..And, it should not mean American oil is pumped out to tankers to take to India or China………While prices rise here………..How fat are your wallets that you think this commodity is available only to overseas markets at the cost to our own economy???? That isn’t capitalism–it’s just raping and pillaging one economy to enable profiteering…….Robber barons comes to mind here….History does repeat itself.

  103. “under which scenario would oil prices drop:”

    None of those would lower the price of oil.
    Oil is traded on the international market.
    The cons prove again how little they know and understand of world affairs.

  104. I know you “artsy” types aren’d too business oriented

    I’ve made my living, since 1981, in a field that isn’t valued in America – I am VERY business oriented – probably more so than a lot of you so-called business types.

  105. Why is it that you liberal free market foes keep insisting that the arts and things like “alternative/ green energy” R&D couldn’t survive if the government didn’t help out (subsidies, set-asides, tax breaks, etc.) and still claim to be against tax breaks for corporations who are primarily footing the bill?

    You could enroll in my Arts Management course and I would be happy to teach you the difference between not-for-profit Charitable organizations and for-profit corporations. But I’m not about to do it for free – I’m too much of a business-person to not get paid for my time and expertize.

  106. Since about 60% of leased Federal lands and over 70% of offshore oil leases are sitting idle – how about a use it or lose it provision to encourage more drilling?

  107. Words that describe “artsy” types that aren’t too business oriented include: dilettante, amateur and hobbyist.

    Words that describe “artsy” types that are business oriented include: professional.

    Just because you have earned a paycheck from someone else in a soul-sucking job doesn’t mean you know shinola about business. Until you have run your own business, or supported yourself as an independent contractor for many, many years, the fact that you are driven by income as a sole motivator doesn’t make you business-oriented – just mercenary.

  108. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Those that can’t, teach. Come on now, BB, you may be intelligent, but since you have stated your profession here before, let’s be honest.

    Oil and gas, as an industry, pay the second highest % in taxes. The deductions they get are not special. If you are so smart and business oriented, why can’t you see through the BS? Why, a few months ago, did you fall hook, line, and sinker for the ‘we export crude’ argument when it is obviously refined products no where near our consumption or import level?

  109. “Those that can’t, teach”

    And those who can’t be taught, attack teachers.

  110. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    beeBs, that was intended as a play on your own words from the previous post – not a personal attack. Sorry if I struck a nerve, but it wasn’t intended.

    Annnnd:

    Just because you have earned a paycheck from someone else in a soul-sucking job doesn’t mean you know shinola about business. Until you have run your own business, or supported yourself as an independent contractor for many, many years, the fact that you are driven by income as a sole motivator doesn’t make you business-oriented – just mercenary.

    I could take that as personally as your take on my take on you take on… never mind. But I think you are aware enough that I operate my own business, so no “soul-sucking” here. What you may not know is I have been doing so longer than you.

    And yeah, the money’s nice when the money’s nice, but each time we do a job we endeavor to produce a product that we’re very proud of, that’s our first priority. And then there’s the intangibles of being able to provide good jobs to good employees – the whole “family” atmosphere thing and such. In other words, there’s way more to subjecting oneself to the responsibilities, risks, and consequences of owning your own business than being “driven by income as a sole motivator”.

    I can think of a lot of other “professions” I could have chosen if money were the “sole motivator”.

  111. averageJoseph says:

    Even a ballerina should understand that if oil company tax breaks are removed it would be transfered to the pump price.

  112. averageJoseph says:

    The free market doesn’t mean NO regulation

    When was there NO regulation?.

  113. vox – yep, it struck a nerve. Thanks for the response – sorry if my response(s) were seen as aimed at you, I meant them in a general manner.

    Fact is, artists who claim they don’t need to be business-savvy drive me frickin’ crazy (there are a few like that who reside in Tacoma), to make it in the arts you have to be MORE business savvy, not less.

    ct7 – yes, teaching at the University part-time is part of my job(s) – the other part involves finding money to pay me and my employees (independent contractors usually) to make art and then producing it. I did have one full-time paycheck from a Uni for four years but got tired of the politics of promotion & tenure.

    Your appropriation of the quote by George Bernard Shaw demonstrates an ignorance of the context in which it was originally used. averageJoseph’s attempt at piling on doesn’t even deserve this sentence in response.

  114. concernedtacoma7 says:

    BB- ask yourself why those are idle? Is oil sitting on the surface waiting to exploited or is there a likelyhood that oil is hard to find/get at?

    An area like ANWR, where oil is known and accessible, is off limits. Opening up areas off the atlantic cost where it is not nearly as rich is a game.

  115. Clearly the oil companies feel that the land has enough potential to be worth paying a lease on it – and one has to assume that the corps are run by people who are fairly smart about not wasting money.

  116. “An area like ANWR”

    Which is completely ignored by the oil companys.
    They don’t want to drill in ANWR, only morons want to drill there.

  117. Have you experts go this mess figured out yet? Lets get with it! I just paid 4 bucks a gallon again! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0