Marx's Role in Gas Prices

HarrySchell

New member
Spending $60, $70, even $90 for a fill up at the gas station is fun right? When it comes to crippling, racist, and economically debilitating energy policy liberals have truly paralyzed America. And they seem proud of their efforts. In the left's refusal to allow us to seek new energy sources they are stunting a nation's economy, they are hurting the average family, and they are starving hungry children.

They also have the gall to do all of this under the guise of feigned outrage at oil companies in addition to self-superior Senate floor speeches where they rage against the administration. They also express abject resentment towards anyone who dares to mention the obvious - that it is their policies that put us in this mess to begin with and disallows our escape from it.
If you want a mere glimpse of their hypocrisy revisit Gore v. Bush. I'm not referring to the court case, but their living arrangements. Bush lives in a solar powered home designed for maximum conservation impact in his Crawford ranch. Al Gore's home has not been converted to solar power, and only a year ago was exposed for having toxic waste on his property that was actually polluting the local water supplies. But this simple comparison barely scratches the surface as to the left's energy scam.

The real pinch that you feel at the pump exists for multiple reasons. Nearly all of them the fault of liberals.

Repeatedly they criticize the administration for having to work with Middle Eastern nations that sell us oil, they mock us for having to beg Saudi princes to increase production, yet they refuse to do the things that would cause the Saudi's and other members of OPEC to lower prices naturally.

This last week the nation of Brazil discovered enough oil sitting only 130 miles off their coast to give them the equivalent of nineteen years worth of oil by their current usage standards. That's nineteen years that they don't have to purchase oil from anywhere else.
Presently in territories under US control we have oil reserves that could eclipse that number by possibly 20 to 30 times. We have the technology to go get it with almost zero impact to the surrounding environment. And in some places where we could go harvest it from - like the Alaskan wilderness, we would need less than 2% of the total territory to give us domestic oil production that would rival the output of what we purchase abroad and thus cause those suppliers to drop their prices. Off the shores of California, Florida, and other oceanside states further exploration could be had with no cost to the taxpayer and any reserves we would find would belong to the U.S. and thus allow us to control our own energy future. But liberals in Washington, the lobbyists who pay them well, and the far left environmentalist groups who are manipulating the public discussion would rather you not be able to pay your bills or even drive your car - than to give in and allow any expanded exploration to occur.

But finding the reserves is only part of the problem. Once the oil is in hand it must be refined, and since "crazy greenies" have prevented the construction of one single additional refinery in nearly a generation, the supply chain is unable to be processed and delivered effectively to help the prices stabilize at the pump. Additionally elected liberals like Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, and U.S. Senator Richard Durbin have worked in concert to see to it that Chicago area drivers now pay a 20% tax on every gallon of gas sold.

The Global Warming scare mongers have played their part as well. Now that more than 31,000 scientists have disputed nearly all of even the most basic claims made in Al Gore's hysterical work of fiction, "An Inconvenient Truth," we are starting to see up close the damage Gore's self-enriching scam has produced. His insistence upon alternative fuels, has created horrific realities which are making the development of fuel far more expensive, and starving orphans on the African continent simultaneously. He's also made tons of personal riches from his "carbon credits" company that has yet to prove how it is regenerating the climate.

When we realize that the amount of corn for example that has to be set aside for the minimum production of ethanol, and how that corn is no longer for food supplies there should exist outrage. When we discover the tons of corn required to make one tank of fuel, yet realize the same amount of corn could feed an African orphan who is presently dying of starvation for a full year that outrage should create a quake for justice that liberals can not escape.
And we haven't even begun to address the entire idea of nuclear energy expansion that could go across the continent heating, lighting, and keeping our homes safe at far lower costs. In places like Africa nuclear power would move villages that are barely surviving into healthy new conditions. Simply replacing the dung that some mothers are forced to cook with would guarantee a drop in the child mortality rate across much of the sub-Saharan portion of the continent. Yet for all of Barack Obama's insistence upon giving a condom to every person in Africa he seems utterly unmoved by the plight of children breathing the smoke of bovine excrement.

Some proponents of energy exploration have argued that we are running out of oil reserves. Yet any one who uses common sense wonders how that is so. Oil reserves are developed by the death and compression of carbon life-forms over the years. Forests, wildlife, marine life, and humans have not stopped dying - nor are they expected to anytime soon. Harvesting living energy supplies - like food - seems to be counter productive than harvesting energy supplies that in fact have already been "processed" naturally for our use. With our more advanced exploration capabilities we are also discovering that we are far - if it's even possible to be - from "running out of oil."

So what does it all mean?

Liberals have put into place legislation that restricts our ability to supply our energy needs for ourselves. They have prevented us from being able to refine the energy supply we obtain. They have prevented us from creating the most cost effective energy supply ever discovered (nuclear). And they appear more than happy to continue to tax the living daylights out of us on the energy we have to have in order to survive.

In short it is using dishonest messages to tax us more, taking the capital we earn for our families, to create a greater dependency on "them" to "solve our problems" for us. Can anyone say "backdoor Marxism?" Do you like your $5 per gallon gas?

Just do nothing... because letting the Marxist left run our energy policy seems to be working out well for all of us!

Isn't it?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/05/25/like_your_$5_gas
 
Do you like your $5 per gallon gas?

Tell it to the Fed. As they ratchet down interest rates speculators will gamble on commodities – including oil. Prices are high due to good old-fashioned free market capitalism, not ‘Marxism.’

I suggest you spend less time on conservative doctrine and dogma and more time in the library.
 
You cant drill your way out of this problem.
Nope, but just like the pumps on a sinking ship, it will buy you some time. We need to get some fast breeder reactors built and online.

We could swallow out pride and buy the technical data from the Russians on their BN-600 and their BN-800 fast reactors. The BN-600 has been operating for decades without serious incident and the BN-800 is nearing completion. We then need to standardize one or two designs and built allot of them. Reprocess the fuel to extract long half-life isotopes that are useful as fuel and bury the leftovers for the 200-500 years it will take for them to decay. Use the heat from the reactors to desalinate water.

The only thing in the way are wackjob environmentalists who hate any sort of development. The problem we currently face is not a technological one, it is a political one.
 
Nuclear may have long term impacts which we do not fully understand, you need to always take the side of caution when it comes to something which could easily contaminate a large city with toxic waste.
 
Tell it to the Fed. As they ratchet down interest rates speculators will gamble on commodities – including oil. Prices are high due to good old-fashioned free market capitalism, not ‘Marxism.’

I suggest you spend less time on conservative doctrine and dogma and more time in the library.

Devaluation of the dollar has not helped at all, but is not the whole story by any means. Purposeful actions by environmentalists and people like Maxine Waters, who just proposed nationalizing the oil business so pols could have our own little Pemex to loot have not helped solve the problems.

I suggest you take a course in how the energy business works, and how Marxism fails utterly to deliver its promises every place and time it is tried.

Zimbabwe is the current poster child for the end game Marxist situation. Can you deny this?
 
Lenin once said...

"The West will sell us the very rope from which we shall hang them."

It seems we have already sold them the rope. The Chinese hold nearly a Trillion of our US dollars. If they dump these dollars on the market, our economy will collapse.

The noose has already been placed around our necks. Thank you democrats and republicans.
 
"all the fault of the liberals"

seems a bit detached from the reality of who own and profits from the price of oil. But if you need to find another way to blame the liberals rather than the conservative owners this might work as some will take it as truth. :barf:
 
seems a bit detached from the reality of who own and profits from the price of oil. But if you need to find another way to blame the liberals rather than the conservative owners this might work as some will take it as truth.

Are there factual problems here?

How do you figure the "conservative" owners arranged to block new refineries? And perhaps you could name these people you are so sure are convservatives?

Got anything factual to back up your ideas? Or are you just ducking?
 
how many executives

at the major oil companies are Democrats. Face fact the oil companies have been pointing at the liberals since the early 60's. Meanwhile they don't build new facilities here in the US while they blame the liberals. Meanwhile no problem to build in say Mexico. Seems like a great line of BS to claim they can not build anything but have to import finished goods at a profit. Does it cost more or less to transport a shipment of crude oil or refined product. I'm betting the shipping cost is the same.

Consider this: why would you build a refinery in the US where basic operating cost are higher (like wages in Mexico are 10% or American wages) on every level when you can build in a foreign port with less operating cost. DUH! Profits maybe.

Lets see oil companies own the wells, they own the oil, they own the pipelines, they own the foreign refineries, they own the tankers and they own a lot of the retails stations across the country. Most important they own most of the politicains. But they can not overcome the liberals. To me that is like saying the Marine Corps can beat any armed force in the world except some ten guys holding a country at bay in South Africa for the last twenty years. Hard to accept the can't do line for 50 years.
 
I asked this in another thread and will ask it again. All the independent reports I have seen show that domestic drilling would only effect gas surplus and price by a maximum of 5% and that it would take up to ten years to even notice that difference. Anyone else see any reliable studies that say different?
 
Meanwhile they don't build new facilities here in the US while they blame the liberals. Meanwhile no problem to build in say Mexico.
A person has to be pretty ignorant to not see that there is not incentive to build new refineries. Lets say I was a carpenter and I had the option of building 10 jewelry boxes and selling them for $1000 each or building 100 boxes and selling them for $100 each...knowing I was guaranteed to sell all of the boxes at the marked price which ever way I decided to go. Which is more beneficial and profitable for me?
 
A person has to be pretty ignorant to not see that there is not incentive to build new refineries. Lets say I was a carpenter and I had the option of building 10 jewelry boxes and selling them for $1000 each or building 1000 boxes and selling them for $100 each...knowing I was guaranteed to sell all of the boxes at the marked price which ever way I decided to go. Which is more beneficial and profitable for me?

Bingo, no need to build more refineries at this time doing so would only cut profits.
 
The 10 year statistic is accurate as far as I am aware of. Just because it will take 10 years is no reason not to start drilling. We could have started drilling back in 03 and we now would be halfway done by now.

Nuclear may have long term impacts which we do not fully understand, you need to always take the side of caution when it comes to something which could easily contaminate a large city with toxic waste.
A legitimate concern, but this isn't the 1950's we have this stuff figured out rather well. You may not be aware of the fact that Coal plants release more radioactive materials into the air than nuke plants ever could.

The problems with Nuke power are well known. The proliferation issue is a Red Herring. Plutonium used in Fast Neutron reactors is useless for nuclear weapons because of the high P-240 and P-241 content. Besides, we arn't going to be leaving this stuff on the side of the highway. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel can result in some nasty chemical waste, but it can be disposed of safely. The leftover waste, if you reprocess, is primarily isotopes with short half lives, generally under 40 years. So you only have to bury it for 300-500 years and after that it is more dangerous as a heavy metal than from the radioactivity.

The Russian BN-600 reactor has been operating safely since 1980. The BN-800 reactor is nearing completion. Both France and Japan are interested in the design. It is an unusual, yet very safe and efficient design. It's pool-type setup allows easy access to the core for maintenance and refueling as well as increases safety by having a large amount of coolant directly in contact with the reactor.
 
The 10 year statistic is accurate as far as I am aware of. Just because it will take 10 years is no reason not to start drilling. We could have started drilling back in 03 and we now would be halfway done by now.
It is just not a matter of time...it is like walking down a dead end hallway, reaching the end and then refusing to turn around but instead continuing to walk into the wall.

And how much would 5% save you anyway? And what would prevent prices from just going up anyway?
 
The Dems in Congress seem to think that an extra 70,000 barrels a day not stored in the SPR is enough to affect prices, but an extra million per day from ANWR is not.

We can't run our cars on Congress' hot air.
 
I whole heartedly believe that the oil execs know their time is coming to an end, and they're gonna get while the getting is, well, an option. Alternative means of energy are being explored and developed at, what seems like, a quicker rate than ever. Gasoline, as a source of power for transportation, may very well be a thing of the past within the next couple of decades.

As well, I believe we can increase fuel standards all we want, but what is to keep the oil companies from simply raising their prices at an incredible rate to make up for the lost revenue? While you may not have to fill up incredibly often with your Toyota Prius, it could cost you a small fortune to do so.

More drilling is not the answer. Alternative sources of energy are. Something renewable, sustainable and environmentally friendly.
 
I'm just hoping that the high price of oil will make renewable energy sources economical. And preferably renewable resources will be developed and built on an industrial scale before the high oil prices cause TEOTWAWKI...
 
Here's an old post on another site where you can all see how certain types of people are so blindly "environmental" that they actually are looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Some of the posters point out that oil shale remediation can be environmentally safe but other posters are blindly following the "greenie" philosophy IMHO.

http://cache.search.yahoo-ht2.akadn...+oil+shale+utah&d=RXgJHDWxQzAW&icp=1&.intl=us

I talked to an oil exec. the other day and he stated remediation methods are very good and environmentally safe. He just shrugged and smiled when I brought up the "greenies'" objections. He had that look of "well some people just hate us and don't want the USA to use petroleum in any way".
 
Back
Top