Hows that $4 a gallon feel

stumbler · Mar 29, 2012

The Republicans have once again voted to approve continuing corporate welfare for the oil companies.

Kimiko · Mar 29, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

The Republicans have once again voted to approve continuing corporate welfare for the oil companies.
Click to expand...

What else is new? It's fascinating, though, the creative ways they come up with to explain their position. Any explanation will do, I guess, except for the real one.

RandyKnight · Mar 29, 2012

Senate Rejects Obama Call To Strip Oil Company Tax Breaks

They can either vote to spend billions of dollars more in oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past. Or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren’t needed to boost oil production so that we can invest in the future,” Obama said. “It’s that simple.”

Less than an hour later, Republican senators were joined by a handful of Democrats in the senate to reject a bill that would do just that. They argue it would raise gas prices even more. The “Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies” bill failed to advance by a vote of 51-47. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle.

The bill would have killed several tax breaks taken by the five largest oil companies and use some of the proceeds to extend expiring energy tax provisions, such as tax breaks for renewable energy, electric cars and energy efficient homes.

Senate Democrats, mostly from oil-rich states, were not supportive of the legislation. They includeded Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Jim Webb, D-Va. Voting with the Democrats was Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Me.

President Obama had argued the tax breaks were more than Americans could afford.

“Last year the three biggest U.S. oil companies took home more than $80 billion in profits. Exxon pocketed nearly $4.7 million every hour. And when the price of oil goes up, prices at the pump go up, and so do these companies’ profits,” he said, adding, “In fact, one analysis shows that every time gas goes up by a penny, these companies usually pocket another $200 million in quarterly profits.”

Obama said the tax incentives for energy companies – which allow them to pay a lower effective tax rate than other companies – are outdated and prime examples of a systemic unfairness that compounds frustration among consumers.

“It’s not as if these companies can’t stand on their own. American oil is booming,” Obama said. “With high oil prices around the world, they’ve got more than enough incentive to produce even more oil.”
But Republicans say Obama is calling for an effective tax hike on oil companies that would in turn be passed on to consumers in the form of even higher gas prices. Current nationwide averages are hovering near $4.00 per gallon.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/senate-rejects-obama-call-to-strip-oil-company-tax-breaks/

stumbler · Mar 29, 2012

Kimiko said: ↑

What else is new? It's fascinating, though, the creative ways they come up with to explain their position. Any explanation will do, I guess, except for the real one.
Click to expand...

You're right but the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers are sure losing the fact check war.

Bogus Oil Claims by Crossroads GPS

Crossroads GPS is accusing the Obama administration of “bad energy policies” causing “prices we can’t afford.” But the Republican-leaning group makes some false and exaggerated claims.

It says the president “limited development of American oil shale.” Actually, production of petroleum from shale formations is booming. What the administration slowed down were plans for experimental development of ways to produce oil by heating kerogen-rich rocks, something that is years away from becoming commercially feasible.

The ad claims Obama lobbied to “kill” the Keystone XL pipeline. Not true. So far he has delayed a decision on some of it — while endorsing construction of a portion that will carry more low-cost oil to Gulf Coast refineries.

The ad correctly notes that there was a 17 percent decline in oil production in the Gulf of Mexico last year. But not all of that is because of the administration’s temporary drilling moratorium there.

The ad started running March 21. Crossroads said it is spending $650,000 to run the 30-second spot on national cable TV and in TV markets in Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada, where the president was pitching his energy policies this week.
The ad correctly notes that the price of gasoline has risen from a little over $1.80 a gallon during the week Obama took office in January 2009, to over $3.70 a gallon more recently. In fact, the average price of regular gasoline hit $3.867 during the week of March 19 — even higher than the figure shown on screen in the ad — according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
But is the difference in the price then and now due to Obama’s policies, as the ad claims? The ad offers some false and misleading evidence.

Oil Shale
The narrator’s claim that the administration “limited development of American oil shale” is badly misleading. No significant restrictions have been placed on the currently booming production of petroleum from shale formations such as the Bakken in North Dakota and Montana, or Eagle Ford in Texas.
Environmental regulations haven’t restrained production. It’s true that the EPA is studying the possible effects on drinking water of the hydraulic fracturing methods that drillers have used to extract oil and gas from such shale formations. But the results of the report are not due until 2014.
What the ad refers to is another type of “shale oil” entirely — rocks that give up petroleum or gas when heated to 650 to 700 degrees Fahrenheit — or more. There are rich deposits of these oil shales in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. But the Energy Information Administration’s experts say “2023 probably is the earliest initial date for first commercial production.”
The ad shows a snippet from a 2009 news story saying “oil shale leases will be scrapped.” To start, that’s a partial quote that gives a false impression. No leases were scrapped. What the full quote makes clear is that a last-minute plan by the Bush administration to grant leases was scrapped.

Reuters, Feb. 25, 2009: A Bush administration plan for more research, development and demonstration oil shale leases will be scrapped because the proposal is flawed and royalties to the government are too low, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said on Wednesday.

The ad also failed to note that these were merely “development and demonstration” leases, and that what Salazar was canceling was a decision announced in the final week of the Bush administration to make up to 2 million acres of public land available for leasing.
Currently, according to a Feb. 3 news release, the Obama administration is studying the effect on the environment of its “preferred alternative” of offering under 462,000 acres for such oil-shale leasing.

Keystone Pipeline

The narrator claims — falsely — that Obama lobbied to “kill” the Keystone XL pipeline project. In fact, he has merely delayed a decision on the controversial northern leg of the project, and lobbied against a GOP move to force quick approval.

The ad cites a Boston Globe story from March 9, which actually says the president called Democratic senators to oppose “a Republican bid to speed approval” of the project, which then failed. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the “fast-track” plan proposed by Senate Republicans could have really hastened construction, because the company that wants to build the pipeline– TransCanada Corporation — has yet to choose a new route through Nebraska to avoid the environmentally sensitive Sandhills area. The company says it is still working with Nebraska officials but expects to submit a new application to the White House this year. It expects to get approval in the first quarter of 2013, and place the pipeline in service in 2015.

Meanwhile, there’s nothing to prevent more Canadian oil from coming into the U.S. right now, should Canada be able and willing to send it. Existing cross-border pipelines already have much more capacity than they are using. Those pipelines have the capacity to bring in more than 1 million barrels per day of additional Canadian oil, according to a study produced for the U.S. State Department by EnSys Energy & Systems Inc. of Lexington, Mass., in December 2010. And the study predicts that surplus capacity will persist at least until the year 2020, even if the Keystone is never built (see table 3-4).

Meanwhile, Obama has embraced the southern portion of the project.

It will begin in Cushing, Okla., and help eliminate a bottleneck that has prevented a glut of lower-cost oil from reaching U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, which have been clamoring for it. On March 21, Obama even said he would order federal agencies to make faster permitting and review decisions, a mostly symbolic gesture, since a TransCanada Corporation official had said earlier that he expects to get the needed permits and to begin construction as soon as this June anyway. The company says it expects the Cushing-to-the-Gulf pipeline to start carrying oil in “mid to late 2013.”

Gulf Production Restricted?
On another point, the ad makes a claim with some validity, but still exaggerates. The narrator says, “President Obama’s administration restricted oil production in the Gulf,” while on screen the viewer can see a snippet of an article saying “in the Gulf of Mexico … it declined 17 percent.”

It’s true the publication Greenwire reported on Feb. 27 that oil production from federal lands and offshore waters declined in 2011. It added: “The reduction in oil production was most significant in the Gulf of Mexico, where it declined nearly 17 percent.” But the same story went on to say, “There could be many causes” besides the administration’s drilling pause.

Experts attribute some of the decline in production to the halt in deepwater drilling that the administration imposed for several months in 2010, after the explosion and fire that sunk the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in April of that year, triggering the worst oil spill in U.S. history. Although the moratorium was lifted after less than six months, the temporary halt caused oil companies to send some of their expensive drilling rigs to other parts of the world, and so the effects are still being felt. According to Rigzone, a trade publication, there were still slightly fewer drilling rigs under contract in U.S. waters in the Gulf in December 2011 than there were prior to the BP disaster.

As we noted a year ago, the EIA had been predicting a decline in Gulf of Mexico oil production even before the BP disaster. That’s because production from newly drilled wells wasn’t expected to offset the drying up of production from thousands of old wells. So some of that 17 percent decline was due to happen no matter what Obama did.

The Big Picture
So overall, are Obama’s policies to blame for today’s high gasoline prices? That’s no more true today than it was in 2008, when Democrats blamed President George W. Bush for prices that briefly topped $4 a gallon, before they plunged during the 2008-2009 recession. The fact is that oil prices are set on world markets. And this time around, the reason prices are soaring is “mainly geopolitical,” according to noted authority Daniel Yergin, chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates and author of several books on world oil markets. He wrote in a March 15 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

Yergin, March 15: At least half a million barrels a day are currently out of the market because of disruptions in South Sudan and Yemen and civil war in Syria. [And] the market is operating on expectations that supplies will become even tighter as new U.S. and European sanctions against Iran take effect and the risk of military conflict increases. Put simply, the oil market is reading the front page.

Yergin added: “Given these circumstances, there’s not much Washington can do in the short term to reduce prices at the pump.”

Click to expand...

http://factcheck.org/2012/03/bogus-oil-claims-by-crossroads-gps/

stumbler · Mar 29, 2012

Obama Wanted Higher Gasoline Prices?

Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have repeatedly lifted several quotes out of context to allege that President Barack Obama and his administration actually wanted to drive up the price of gasoline, and have succeeded.

Gingrich said Obama wants gasoline prices to get to the European levels of $9 or $10 a gallon, but that “he just wants it to be gradual.” But that’s not what Obama said. Rather, when asked in 2008 about then-$4 per gallon gasoline prices, and whether that could be a good thing to encourage people toward alternative energy, Obama responded that he “would have preferred a gradual adjustment” because “the fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.” He said nothing of wanting to goose gasoline prices to European levels, gradually or otherwise.

Romney has repeatedly claimed Obama said during the 2008 campaign that under his energy policy, energy prices would “skyrocket.” “And they have,” Romney said. But Obama was talking about electricity, not gasoline. And the cap-and-trade plan he endorsed to limit carbon emissions — which died in the Senate in 2009 — included provisions aimed at protecting consumers from higher prices.

Gingrich repeatedly has cited a comment Energy Secretary Steven Chu made in 2008 about wanting to boost the price of gasoline to encourage fuel conservation. But Chu made that remark before the 2008 election and before Chu became energy secretary. Upon joining the Obama administration, Chu said it would be “completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline.”

With gasoline prices inching toward $4 per gallon (they stood at $3.88 per gallon for regular unleaded on March 22), Gingrich and Romney have not only blamed Obama for the rising cost of gasoline, they say it was part of his stated plan.

What Romney and Gingrich Say
In an interview on Fox News Sunday on March 18, Romney was asked by host Bret Baier if he believes President Obama is to blame for high gasoline prices.

Romney, March 18: Well, there’s no question but when he ran for office, he said he wanted to see gasoline prices go up. He said that energy prices would skyrocket under his views, and he has selected three people to help him implement that program.

On the campaign trail on March 19 in Illinois, and again in a Google+ “hangout” on March 20, Romney repeated the claim:

Romney, March 19: There’s one promise he made that he kept. You see, when he was running, he talked about how his energy policies would cause energy prices to skyrocket.
And when told that gasoline prices had jumped, he said he’d rather see them go up gradually.
Romney, March 20: The doubling of gasoline prices obviously follows a presidential policy which had been to see energy prices rise.
You may recall that the president famously said back when he was a candidate that under his energy policy, energy prices would skyrocket. And they have.
And he also was asked about the rise in gas prices. He said, “Well. I’d rather see it change gradually.”

In both addresses, Romney said Obama has apparently had an “election year conversion” and that he now wants to bring gasoline prices down.
Here’s the Gingrich version. He was asked by Charlie Rose of CBS’ “This Morning” on Feb. 21 whether he believes Obama wanted higher gasoline prices:

Gingrich, Feb. 21: Of course he does. C’mon Charlie, you know that. He has said it himself. Chu, his secretary of energy, said in 2008 he wanted gasoline prices in America to get to the European level, which is $9 or $10 a gallon. Last year, the president said people shouldn’t complain about higher gas prices — they ought to buy more efficient cars. The president himself said he wants to get there, he just wants it to be gradual.

There are three comments at the heart of these claims, two by Obama and one by Steven Chu, Obama’s secretary of energy. We’ll address each one separately.

The ‘Gradual’ Comment
The claim that Obama wanted to see gasoline prices rise “gradually” comes from comments Obama made in an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood on June 10, 2008, when gasoline was $4 a gallon.

Harwood, June 10, 2008: As difficult as this is for consumers right now, is, in fact, high gas prices what we need to let the market work, a line incentive so that we do shift to alternative means of energy?
Obama: Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn’t had an energy policy. And as a consequence, we’ve been consuming energy as if it’s infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are. So…
Harwood: So could these high prices help us?
Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.

It’s true that given the opportunity, Obama did not dismiss the notion outright that higher gasoline prices might be a good idea to create incentives for people to switch to alternative energy sources. But the context of the question was that gasoline had risen to $4 per gallon. The rapid rise in the price of gasoline was, he said, “such a shock to American pocketbooks” and “not a good thing,” and that he would have preferred that they had risen more gradually. That’s different from advocating for gradually higher gasoline prices in the future.
By way of further context, Obama had just dismissed Sen. John McCain’s gasoline tax holiday as a short-term gimmick. Obama said long term, the only way to lower gasoline prices was to change the way Americans consume oil, and that as president he would invest in alternative energy and raise the fuel efficiency standards on cars (both of which he later did).

The ‘Skyrocket’ Comment
Romney is also off base with his claim about Obama’s prediction that energy prices would “skyrocket” under his policies, and that we are seeing the fruition of that now at the gasoline pump. Obama’s “skyrocket” quote was part of a discussion about cap-and-trade as a means to reduce greenhouse gases.
There’s no question that curbing greenhouse gas emissions would bring about higher energy prices. Obama, speaking to the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle on Jan. 17, 2008, said electricity costs (not gasoline prices) would “necessarily skyrocket” as a result of capping emissions levels, and that his job as president would be to convince the public and Congress that benefits outweigh costs. “If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington, you’re not going to get that done.”
On June 26, 2009, the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill, by a vote of 219-212. The bill included allowances to electric companies to protect consumers from increases in electricity bills. But the bill died in the Senate. And so, of course, it couldn’t have driven up gasoline prices. Romney has lifted Obama’s quote out of context and applied it to a wholly different topic, gasoline prices.

Chu’s ‘European Level’ Comment
Gingrich repeatedly has cited Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s 2008 comment on gasoline taxes as evidence that Obama’s policies are to blame for high gasoline prices. In one such recent instance, Gingrich was asked by Charlie Rose of CBS’ “This Morning” whether he believes Obama wanted higher gasoline prices.

Gingrich, March 20: Of course… you know that. He has said it himself. Chu, his secretary of energy, said in 2008 he wanted gasoline prices in America to get to the European level, which is $9 or $10 a gallon.

Did Chu really say that? Yes, but he said it before he became energy secretary and before Obama won the 2008 presidential election. Shortly after becoming energy secretary, Chu said it would be “completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline.”
Gingrich is referring to comments Chu made to the Wall Street Journal in September 2008. In a Dec. 12, 2008, article, the Wall Street Journal said Chu “has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.” The story noted the interview with Chu took place in September 2008, when Chu was in charge of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California.

Chu, September 2008: Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.

Note that the context in the story was a discussion of gasoline taxes. The story immediately went on to note that Obama “has dismissed the idea of boosting the federal gasoline tax, a move energy experts say could be the single most effective step to promote alternative energies and temper demand. Mr. Obama said Sunday that a heightened gasoline tax would be a ‘mistake’ because it would put ‘additional burdens on American families right now.’ ”
In April 2009, as secretary of energy, Chu was asked about his 2008 interview with the Wall Street Journal at a congressional hearing on Earth Day. He told Congress he rejected the idea of raising taxes or taking any steps that would raise the price of gasoline.

Rep. Cliff Stearns, April 28, 2009: Last September, you made a statement that somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe, which at the time exceeded $8 a gallon. As secretary of energy will you speak for or against any measures that would raise the price of gasoline?
Chu: As secretary of energy, I think especially now in today’s economic climate it would be completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline. And so we are looking forward to reducing the price of transportation in the American family. And this is done by encouraging fuel-efficient cars. This is done by developing alternative forms of fuel like biofuels that can lead to a separate source, an independent source of transportation fuel.
Stearns: But you can’t honestly believe that you want the American people to pay for gasoline at the prices, the level in Europe?
Chu: No, we don’t.

Gasoline taxes remain at 18.4 cents per gallon, unchanged since 1993.
Click to expand...

http://factcheck.org/2012/03/obama-wanted-higher-gasoline-prices/

xnxxbob · Mar 29, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

The Republicans have once again voted to approve continuing corporate welfare for the oil companies.
Click to expand...

Last I heard the Senate was controlled by Dems. Next?

RandyKnight · Mar 29, 2012

naughtygirl666 said: ↑

Yep I queued up for nearly an hour yesterday to get fuel, it's a bloody joke!

All this fuss by the people over the pond on $4 a gallon, I wish.
Wait until they have to pay £1.46 a litre for fuel I can hear the kick offs from here!
Click to expand...

UK Taxes......the raw cost is about the same as USA

Total Cost at Pump

..............Fuel ....Duty.... VAT....% of Fuel Cost that is Tax
Unleaded 118.7p 58.19p 17.68p ------------64%

January 2011 there will be an additional 0.76p/litre duty added to all 3 of the fuels above, on top of a VAT increase to 20% (from 17.5%)

Note that in January 2011 there will be an additional 0.76p/litre duty added to all 3 of the fuels above, on top of a VAT increase to 20% (from 17.5%). If the non taxed part of fuel prices stays the same this will mean a total increase of around 3.3p/litre for unleaded and diesel, and 2.2p for LPG

Kimiko · Mar 29, 2012

xnxxbob said: ↑

Last I heard the Senate was controlled by Dems. Next?
Click to expand...

Republicans in the Senate have enough votes to prevent any proposed action by the majority. I shouldn't have to explain so elementary a concept.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/politics/oil-subsidies/index.html

RandyKnight · Mar 30, 2012

xnxxbob said: ↑

Last I heard the Senate was controlled by Dems. Next?
Click to expand...

Kimiko said: ↑

Republicans in the Senate have enough votes to prevent any proposed action by the majority. I shouldn't have to explain so elementary a concept.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/politics/oil-subsidies/index.html
Click to expand...

A quick good explanation....

The procedural vote of 51-47, which failed to reach the needed threshold of 60 in favor, killed the measure, which was given little chance of eventually winning approval in the Republican-controlled House. Four Democrats opposed the bill while one Republican supported it.

stumbler · Mar 30, 2012

RandyKnight said: ↑

A quick good explanation....

The procedural vote of 51-47, which failed to reach the needed threshold of 60 in favor, killed the measure, which was given little chance of eventually winning approval in the Republican-controlled House. Four Democrats opposed the bill while one Republican supported it.
Click to expand...

They sure are willing to cut food stamps, welfare, social security, medicare and Medicaid but cutting corporate welfare for the richest companies in the world, well not so much.

By the way if our free market capitalist economy is so great how come the communist oil and gas companies are surpassing the US?

Exxon/Mobil is now behind the Russian oil and gas company and the Chinese oil and gas company now leads the world.

RandyKnight · Mar 30, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

They sure are willing to cut food stamps, welfare, social security, medicare and Medicaid but cutting corporate welfare for the richest companies in the world, well not so much.

By the way if our free market capitalist economy is so great how come the communist oil and gas companies are surpassing the US?

Exxon/Mobil is now behind the Russian oil and gas company and the Chinese oil and gas company now leads the world.
Click to expand...

Well during the crash a few years back my bubble got busted..:sad:

I found out when big biz and banks fucked up and need help this country is socialism...

When the small guy needs help it is all about free market capitalism...

I am no damn 1%er and neither are my friends but most of use are well up the ladder and all of us are pissed about what this country has turned into.

Kimiko · Mar 30, 2012

RandyKnight said: ↑

A quick good explanation....

The procedural vote of 51-47, which failed to reach the needed threshold of 60 in favor, killed the measure, which was given little chance of eventually winning approval in the Republican-controlled House. Four Democrats opposed the bill while one Republican supported it.
Click to expand...

I heard it was two Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

ace's n 8's · Mar 31, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

The Republicans have once again voted to approve continuing corporate welfare for the oil companies.
Click to expand...

You lying fool,, it was the democratic controlled senate that voted it down.

(Democrat controlled) Senate Rejects Obama Call To Strip Oil Company Tax Breaks..

ipscout · Mar 31, 2012

Bush made so much money in the oil business, because he has a secret dinosaur ranch. They aren't extinct. Didn't you see Jurassic Park II?! They are genetically engineering baby dinosaurs to make fossil fuels! Open your eyes! The dinosaurs will rise again!

RandyKnight · Mar 31, 2012

Kimiko said: ↑

I heard it was two Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.
Click to expand...

i don't know those women...are they any good at giving blow jobs?

stumbler · Mar 31, 2012

ace's n 8's said: ↑

You lying fool,, it was the democratic controlled senate that voted it down.

(Democrat controlled) Senate Rejects Obama Call To Strip Oil Company Tax Breaks..
Click to expand...

Bullshit Ace.

GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies

But moments after the president's plea, the Senate voted 51-47 against the bill, with four Democrats in the majority.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57406930/gop-blocks-obamas-bid-to-end-oil-subsidies/
Even if the four democrats who voted with the GOP had voted for the democrats instead they still would not have had the 60 votes required to over come the GOP filibuster.

ace's n 8's · Apr 1, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Bullshit Ace.

GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57406930/gop-blocks-obamas-bid-to-end-oil-subsidies/
Even if the four democrats who voted with the GOP had voted for the democrats instead they still would not have had the 60 votes required to over come the GOP filibuster.
Click to expand...

Horseshit,,it was a bipartisan effort to vote it down,,in the democratic controlled Senate.

stumbler · Apr 1, 2012

ace's n 8's said: ↑

Horseshit,,it was a bipartisan effort to vote it down,,in the democratic controlled Senate.
Click to expand...

You're certifiably delusional Ace.

stumbler · Apr 5, 2012

Gas Price Experts: Wall Street 'Casinos' Raise Pain At The Pump

WASHINGTON -- Americans are paying for $4-a-gallon gasoline because Wall Street "casinos" have blocked regulators from cracking down on rampant oil speculation, finance experts argued on Capitol Hill Wednesday.

In an effort to counter Republican claims that gas prices are high because the Obama administration does not allow enough drilling, House Democratic leaders staged a hearing featuring former Reagan and Clinton administration oil and trading analysts who blame the surge on speculation.

And the vast profits from that speculation do not go into developing more oil or creating jobs, the analysts argued.

"Your constituents should know that every time they break their heart by buying $4 and maybe soon $5 gasoline, that money isn't going into production," said University of Maryland professor Michael Greenberger, who served as director of the division of trading and markets for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the Clinton administration. "It's going into homebuilding in the Hamptons and yacht building."

And the big finance firms are working overtime to ensure that the speculative commodity keeps flowing, he said.

"They've got hundreds of millions of dollars that they are using in lobbying on the Hill" or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Greenberger told HuffPost after the session. "Now they are bringing all these lawsuits; they are stopping the action that has already been asked for by Congress to stop the speculation."
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/gas-prices-wall-street-_n_1403862.html

RandyKnight · Apr 5, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Gas Price Experts: Wall Street 'Casinos' Raise Pain At The Pump

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/gas-prices-wall-street-_n_1403862.html
Click to expand...

Well, I have been saying that for the last year...glad they finally woke up.

What pisses me off, although gas has gone up 30% the airlines have jumped in and raised their prices 65% claiming high fuel costs.

Well fuck them....I will not pay a spiked up price to fly to Vegas for the Kentucky Derby party and decided to buy a new TV 42in for less than that fucking plane ticket.

Log in or Sign up

stumbler Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

xnxxbob Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

Kimiko Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

Kimiko Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ipscout bug24

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

Hows that $4 a gallon feel

Log in or Sign up

stumbler Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

xnxxbob Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

Kimiko Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

Kimiko Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ipscout bug24

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

Useful Searches