Mcain and Obama on energy...

Kreyzhorse posted:
I'm not a supporter of Obama, but I can certainly admit that part of his point had merit, as can you, as can McCain If proper tire inflation saved 400 thousand of barrels of oil a day it is certainly worth doing and sure as hell worth pointing out.

I'm not voting for the guy but I can't slam him for pointing out a simple way to save oil. Is he flip floping and playing the game? He certainly is. McCain is as well. Sadly its politics today and these two guys are becoming pretty good at it.
Click to expand...

The question I have, however, is what was the point he was trying to make? I saw him bringing up "tire inflation" as just a way to deflect the fact that he doesn't want any new drilling. It was a stump speech throw away line that was intended, by Obama, to change the subject, because he knows he's on the wrong side of the political debate right now, when it comes to new drilling for our own oil.

Now, let's suppose he had said, "Part of our overall energy policy needs to be conservation. Yes, we need to produce more of our own oil by drilling here in the US. However, we also need to do as much as possible, and which is reasonable, to conserve. We can do little things like keeping our tires properly inflated and making sure our cars are tuned up when need be. This could save 4% of our current gasoline useage."

That would have been a smart statement, and McCain, the republicans, nor I, could not have taken any issue with it at all without looking stupid. But that's not what he said.

He said that by properly inflating our tires, we could save all of the oil we are talking about drilling for. What does this mean in his mind? We don't need to drill for more oil. We just need to do little things like inflating our tires and tuning up our cars. This will save enough energy so that we won't have to do any additional drilling. That's what he was saying and it's foolish. When called on it, he tried to change the dynamics of what he said by saying that inflating our tires is a smart thing to do and is accepted as a smart thing to do even by NASCAR. That's changing the point of what he originally said to make it appear that he's the smart one and McCain is the dummy for calling him out on a point that McCain agrees with. See the trap? You seem to have fallen head first into it.

But don't feel like the Lone Ranger, Kreyzhorse. Check out this line in the AP news story:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ne...pokes_at_mccain_over_tide_pressure_issue.html

Discussing the air-pressure issue during an appearance Tuesday night, McCain said he wasn't opposed to Obama's suggestion. "And could I mention that Senator Obama a couple of days ago said that we ought to all inflate our tires, and I don't disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it, but I also don't think that that's a way to become energy independent."

Obama had noted that keeping tires inflated and cars tuned was endorsed by both NASCAR and AAA and should be part of any comprehensive plan to reduce reliance on imported oil.


Look at what I've emboldened. That is not what Obama said. They are either falling into his trap, as you apparently did, or they are providing cover fire for him. They never even mention his orginal statement where he implies that if we just inflate our tires properly and tune up our cars, we won't need to do any new drilling for oil in the US. That's a stupid statement and McCain and the GOP were wise to make fun of him for it. His backpeddling is a good sign that they hit the mark. You know what they say: "If you're taking flak, you must be over the target". ;)
 
Wonder what jobs the speculators:barf: will find to steal monies when we do get our own oil? Car maintenance, not jet-setting to some other country burning 2 gal/min.,owning 5-10 mansions keeping a/c and heat running non-stop(especially when your in none of them)... all these things are good,common sense suggestions for saving energy. Hell far as that goes the fuel burned in campaigning is outright dissgracefull. Wonder if all the tires in all those limo`s are checked daily. Wonder what the mpg is on those limo`s. I`ve got a 1992 Geo Prism that gets about 35 mpg they could use on the campaign trail.
 
Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we only drive our cars with the wind and never against it? If you need to head west and there's a strong head wind from the west, just postpone your trip until the wind either dies down or changes direction. This would probably save us as much gas as proper tire inflation and tune ups when tune ups are required. As folks have mentioned, many new cars require tune ups at 100K miles. Another thing to improve gas mileage is to make sure you always drive with your windows up. If you a have a pickup truck without a topper, take your tailgate off and put a chrome "slotted" tailgate on or one of those fabric tailgates that let the wind pass through them. All of these are good ideas that Barack forgot to mention along with tire inflation and tune ups.

He's going to cause inflation all right when he "improperly" inflates our taxes. Any money you save on fuel costs by inflating your tires will be more than negated by inflation in the economy and inflated taxes.
 
Now, let's suppose he had said, "Part of our overall energy policy needs to be conservation. Yes, we need to produce more of our own oil by drilling here in the US. However, we also need to do as much as possible, and which is reasonable, to conserve. We can do little things like keeping our tires properly inflated and making sure our cars are tuned up when need be. This could save 4% of our current gasoline usage."

That would have been a smart statement, and McCain, the republicans, nor I, could not have taken any issue with it at all without looking stupid. But that's not what he said. That would have been a smart statement, and McCain, the republicans, nor I, could not have taken any issue with it at all without looking stupid. But that's not what he said.
Click to expand...

So we established that his statement was overtop. I don't think that I am defending his statement or fallen into the trap. But as you've admitted, saving 4% of our current gasoline usage is a good thing and you don’t deny that proper tire inflation saves fuel. So, I guess in theory you do agree with the spirit of Obama’s message if not the letter.

So, your real sticking point is that he didn't (or doesn’t depending on where he is today) want to drill. That's fine and I agree with you that we need to drill. However, claiming that opening long term drilling is going to fix our fuel issues and prices in the short term is wrong and shows little actual thought given to this outside of touting the party lines. Even McCain said that drilling won't add a drop of new oil to the pipeline for 10 years.


The futures market is the same thing as the "speculators" the democrats were warning us about and blaming for the high price of oil. Notice that when the "speculators" started to believe that the US is finally getting serious about adding more oil to the global supply, they started bidding the price down, even with not one new drop of US produced oil hitting the market.
Click to expand...

By your quote above, the price of oil fell because "the US is finally getting serious about adding more oil to the global supply." The price fell with "even with not one new drop of US produced oil hitting the market."

By your logic, it wasn't an actual increase in supply that caused oil prices to fall but a "thought" that oil supply might increase, a speculation as it were.

That also leads to an easy assumption that oil was artificially inflated due to "speculation." At its peak price of over $140 a barrel, it was estimated that $60 of that price was due to speculation.

democrats were warning us about and blaming for the high price of oil.
Click to expand...

You just said yourself that oil dropped in price due to the thought of additional oil hitting the market. What did it drop on? Was it increased supply from off shore drilling? No. It dropped on "speculation" that a new supply of oil would eventually reach the market. Thus by the same school of thought, oil was over valued by the same speculators. Dem idea or not, clearly speculators caused an inflated cost of oil.

To solve this fuel crisis, clearly the US needs to drill. Drilling is a long term fix though. In the short term however, we need to conserve fuel where possible. Like Obama or not, claim that his idea was asinine, fine, but you have to admit that off shore drilling, a long term fix, isn’t a short term answer. Partisan politics and attack adds won’t solve it either.

And for the record, most people believe that Airgates actually decrease fuel mileage by increasing drag on the bed of the truck….. :)
 
I said I agreed that proper inflation of tires is a good idea. It saves money on gas and it prolongs the length of your tires. I have not faulted Obama with those two issues in mind. I will still maintain that those were just tangent issues to his main point, which was, 'we don't really need to drill because proper tire inflation and tune ups can save as much oil as they're talking about drilling for', which is flat out WRONG.

It won't take 10 years to get the oil flowing, but I agree it's not an immediate, short term fix to increase the supply of oil. However, it will result in a drop in oil prices because the speculators will now bet on futures knowing that there is more oil coming down the pipe in the not too distant future. They won't want to be stuck with a contract paying $140.00/barrel when the prices start to drop back towards $100.00 per barrel. As you agreed, we've already seen this happen when Bush removed the executive order to prevent offshore drilling.

The reason the speculators drove prices up is because they see the world demand increasing (fueled by India and China, no pun intended) and the US was refusing to do anything to increase our own supply. This means demand continues to rise dramatically, while supplies remained rather stagnant and certainly wouldn't be increasing at a rate which would match the increase in demands.

So the short term solution is to conserve and make indications to the market that we will be working hard to increase our own supplies ASAP, even if that takes close to 10 years. The solution is not to continue to prevent more drilling in the US while telling the US consumers that they wouldn't have to worry about more drilling if they'd only keep their tires inflated properly and their cars tuned up. That's just silly, even if keeping your tires inflated is a good idea. I think we are mostly in agreement. Where we differ, it appears, is that you are looking more at the issue of whether inflating tires is a good idea or not and are giving Obama credit for mentioning that. I'm OK with that as far as it goes. But isn't Obama supposed to be a "new" politician with new ideas for change? Well, it's been common knowledge since I was a teenager (some 30+ years ago) that proper inflation of tires was a way to save gas and tires. This is nothing new or profound. It's old news. Obama was trying to change the debate off of new drilling because he knew he is on the losing side of that issue. You at least agree with that, don't you? So he tosses out this stump speech throw away line and it came off as being very naive. He got called on it and had to back pedal by saying that inflating tires is a good idea. He's not wrong about that, but he's certainly way, way, way off base in saying that you can save all of the oil they are talking about drilling for. He's not ready to be the leader of the free world. Stupid antics like this just add evidence to that fact.
 
Last edited:
By your quote above, the price of oil fell because "the US is finally getting serious about adding more oil to the global supply." The price fell with "even with not one new drop of US produced oil hitting the market."

By your logic, it wasn't an actual increase in supply that caused oil prices to fall but a "thought" that oil supply might increase, a speculation as it were.

That also leads to an easy assumption that oil was artificially inflated due to "speculation." At its peak price of over $140 a barrel, it was estimated that $60 of that price was due to speculation.
Click to expand...

Of course oil prices were inflated due to "speculation". That's how the futures market works. If you were bidding on future oil contracts, and you saw that world demand was increasing dramatically, but world supply was only increasing marginally, you'd "speculate" that a contract in the future would be worth a lot more than it is now, and you'd be willing to pay more for that contract.

Here's another example. Let's say that the US government, in an effort to reduce urban sprawl, said that we could no longer build any new houses in the US. Do you think real estate speculators would start bidding up the price of available housing in the US? Of course they would. This is why we had a housing bubble. The banks got too loose with the money supply, meaning more and more people could start to buy houses, even if they couldn't really afford the payments. This caused a dramatic increase in the demand for housing but the supply couldn't keep pace. Thus, the cost of houses rose dramatically. The market went through a correction, just as the oil markets are now going through a correction. But the inflated oil prices were partly inflated due to the US resistance to drill for more of our own oil in the face of increased world demand.
 
And for the record, most people believe that Airgates actually decrease fuel mileage by increasing drag on the bed of the truck…..
Click to expand...

That might be so. I'm certainly not an expert on truck aerodynamics. Maybe the solution then is to install a snap on box cover so the air stays out of the pick up truck bed when a topper is not installed. Anyway, that's not really part of the debate so I'll not push it any further.
 
I think we are mostly in agreement. Where we differ, it appears, is that you are looking more at the issue of whether inflating tires is a good idea or not and are giving Obama credit for mentioning that. I'm OK with that as far as it goes.
Click to expand...

I don't think we are too far off base. I don't support nor would I even consider voting for Obama. McCain? He had my vote in 2000 but now I'm not even sure the 2000 McCain would vote for the current version of 2008 McCain.

I guess I struggle with supporting one party view of how to solve this problem and honestly solving this will take both parties working together. Clearly we need to drill. Will drilling lower our prices even in 10 years? I doubt it. I do think that drilling is vital to ensure our supply of oil. The Middle East, as always has been, is a volatile region. As we've seen, oil in short supply, or speculators fearing short supply, can have terrible effects on the economy and our economy is driven in a large part by the cost of fuel. Is $4.50 a gallon a breaking point for the economy? No, but I think it is getting close especially when you consider that you pay for the cost of fuel in every thing you purchase, just not what goes in your tank.

I don’t think the price of oil rose for any real demand issues. I think oil rose purely due to speculation driving up the cost. I don’t believe that it fell due to the promise of oil in 10 years time brought by off shore drilling. I do think that the markets and the effects that high oil was having on the global economy brought it back down. When you look at the effect on a global scale, price bubbles caused by speculation are dangerous and certainly the door is open for price fixing. See Enron. See BP and their $300 million fine for price fixing and market manipulation.

I see McCain touting off shore drilling as a solution. I see Obama touting conservation as a solution. In my opinion, they are both wrong, but they are also both right. We need to limit speculation, we need to drill off shore to ensure our future supply, we need to have new refineries built to open capacity, we need to invest in nuclear and wind power along with a continued investment in coal. None of those are quick fixes. In the mean time we need to conserve what we can.

I like to see debate on this issue. I wish that more people invested time and thought in debate. I don’t want to see this election won by the “uneducated” voters who see 30 second ads and think that “If we drill off shore, the price of gas will come down this Thursday” nor do I want to see “Obama got it right, conservation is the key, we don’t need to drill.” Truth be told, the answer is some where in the middle. That is why at least I gave Obama credit for stating the obvious even if he missed it by half. Conserve now? Great idea. Drill for the future? Damn straight, just don't sell it that it is the key to bring high gas prices down right now.
 
I see McCain touting off shore drilling as a solution.
Click to expand...

Not true. McCain has repeatedly stated drilling is only PART of the solution. The solution being a comprehensive energy plan with conservation, new technology development and the utilization nuclear and drilling to secure needs on the way to that.
 
Not true. McCain has repeatedly stated drilling is only PART of the solution. The solution being a comprehensive energy plan with conservation, new technology development and the utilization nuclear and drilling to secure needs on the way to that.
Click to expand...

True, McCain has a comprehensive plan that includes those items mentioned, however, my point was McCain is touting drilling as a quick fix for high gas prices.

You don't have to take my word, take McCain's...

“With gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians,” McCain said in a speech on Tuesday in the oil hub of Houston, Texas.

“As a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now,” McCain said, “and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production.”
Click to expand...


"And with gasoline running at more than $4 a barrel ... a gallon ... I wish ... $4 a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians,"
Click to expand...

“We’re not going to pay $4 a gallon for gas because we’re going to drill offshore, and we’re going to drill now. We’re going to drill here. We’re going to drill now!”
Click to expand...
 
If alternative energy is practical, economical, and will be widely available in the near future, then there is no reason not to us our oil now.

If it isn't, then we need to use our oil now while we find these alternatives.

Either way, drill it now.
 
Drill for more oil. Start working on coal liquefaction, and extracting shale oil. We also need more nuclear power plants, more windpower, and more solar power. Instead of a drug czar what we really need in an energy czar. And the equivalent of the Manhatten Project for energy independance and weaning ourselves off of petroleum.
 
Unfortunately drilling our oil IS the fastest known answer to our energy woes. Don`t know of an alternative source of energy that can replace oil within the next ten years. McCains statement of drilling our oil being the fastest answer to our fuel problems is a true statement.Oil is used to produce literally thous. of products other than fuel. Oil as a source of fuel will always be in existance but we do need to(as we`ve been doing) look for an alternative source to if not replace,help to conserve our oil deposits. We WILL, being the nation we are, work through this oil problem. Won`t be overnight(we didn`t get here overnjght) but we`ll work through it. How fast will depend on who`s in the Whitehouse,Congress and how much they want to fight and political posture.
 
Kreyzhorse posted:

I don't think we are too far off base. I don't support nor would I even consider voting for Obama. McCain? He had my vote in 2000 but now I'm not even sure the 2000 McCain would vote for the current version of 2008 McCain.
Click to expand...

I'd never vote for a left wing, liberal, closet Marxist, such as Obama. As for McCain, I haven't decided that I will vote for him. If I do, it will be purely a "Stop Obama" vote with my fingers pinching my nose shut and my prayers for a more conservative candidate put in place by republicans next time around. This is why McCain's VP pick is so important. I could give a rat's patute who Obama picks.

I guess I struggle with supporting one party view of how to solve this problem and honestly solving this will take both parties working together. Clearly we need to drill. Will drilling lower our prices even in 10 years? I doubt it. I do think that drilling is vital to ensure our supply of oil. The Middle East, as always has been, is a volatile region. As we've seen, oil in short supply, or speculators fearing short supply, can have terrible effects on the economy and our economy is driven in a large part by the cost of fuel. Is $4.50 a gallon a breaking point for the economy? No, but I think it is getting close especially when you consider that you pay for the cost of fuel in every thing you purchase, just not what goes in your tank.
Click to expand...

I don't like the one party view on a host of issues, but there certainly are some views that seem to lie with a particular party and which I favor overwhelmingly. Gun control would be one of those issues. Taxes are another. I agree we need both parties working together to solve our dependence on foreign oil. So far it's been the democrats blocking drilling for more of our own oil, blocking nuclear power, and blocking more burning of clean coal. They only seem to want alternative energy sources, which need to be part of the mix, but not the only answer. This shows them playing to their radical environmentalist base, such as the Sierra Club, Green Peace, and others.


I don’t think the price of oil rose for any real demand issues. I think oil rose purely due to speculation driving up the cost. I don’t believe that it fell due to the promise of oil in 10 years time brought by off shore drilling. I do think that the markets and the effects that high oil was having on the global economy brought it back down. When you look at the effect on a global scale, price bubbles caused by speculation are dangerous and certainly the door is open for price fixing. See Enron. See BP and their $300 million fine for price fixing and market manipulation.
Click to expand...

Well, demand has been steadily rising with the coming on of powerful economies such as China and India. This caused the speculation in the futures market because OPEC said they could only increase production a little bit. Of course, have you seen the profits going to the Arab countries? I heard that Saudi Arabia is set to make 1.25 Trillion on oil sales this year, which is more than double what they made last year, which was also a record. OPEC, limited increases in production, and increased demand, caused the speculators to make a run on oil futures.

What brought it back down was a tightening of useage brought on by high prices (the market working), some increased production by OPEC so that they could profit even more from the higher prices, and an indication that America was starting to entertain drilling for more of it's own resources and increase production of alternative fuels over the next 10 years and beyond. This caused the speculators to reverse the upward trend.

I see McCain touting off shore drilling as a solution. I see Obama touting conservation as a solution. In my opinion, they are both wrong, but they are also both right. We need to limit speculation, we need to drill off shore to ensure our future supply, we need to have new refineries built to open capacity, we need to invest in nuclear and wind power along with a continued investment in coal. None of those are quick fixes. In the mean time we need to conserve what we can.
Click to expand...

McCain has also touted other facets of the solution, but he did go out, while campaigning and said that by planning to drill here and drill now, we'd bring down the price of oil. He is right that, due to the futures market, the price of oil will come down, but probably not as much as he may have been implying on the campaign trail. Remember, all candidates try to buy votes in one way or another. This was one way McCain felt he could buy votes. But he was not touting more drilling as the only piece of the puzzle when it comes to energy independance. I also agree with you that we, as Americans, need to conserve whenever we can. It will help our pocket books, if nothing else. However, I don't want to turn that into a "big government will tell us all how to live" scenario. I'm sure you understand what I mean there.

I like to see debate on this issue. I wish that more people invested time and thought in debate. I don’t want to see this election won by the “uneducated” voters who see 30 second ads and think that “If we drill off shore, the price of gas will come down this Thursday” nor do I want to see “Obama got it right, conservation is the key, we don’t need to drill.” Truth be told, the answer is some where in the middle. That is why at least I gave Obama credit for stating the obvious even if he missed it by half. Conserve now? Great idea. Drill for the future? Damn straight, just don't sell it that it is the key to bring high gas prices down right now.
Click to expand...

I think debate is key to this issue, so I agree with you there. I also wish the American electorate was 10 times better informed than they are on a whole host of issues, including politics, history, geography, sciences and economics.
The answer is always someplace other than most politicians tell us we'll find it. Drill now. Great idea. It will eventually bring gas prices down and help us ween ourselves off of foreign oil while we buy the time to create our alternative energy infrastructure, including nuclear and clean burning coal. Conserve now? Sure thing. It helps save our own pocket books and helps reduce the money going to loons like Hugo Chavez and to kingdoms like that of Saudi Arabia. But don't tell the american public that conserving by properly inflating our tires (while a good idea), means we'll save enough gasoline that we won't have to talk about any more domestic drilling. That's just plain silly on its face.
 
Yeah, the price of oil is dropping. Why? Because world demand is dropping due to the overall slowdown in growth. Economies are slowing down, everywhere. However, our slowdown is quite likely to last longer than in Europe or Asia. We're in far worse shape. To me, that means that foreign demand will again rise in a year or two, and the price of oil will resume its inevitable upward movement.

Obama and the Democrats want to impose a "windfall profits" tax. We've done that. What resulted was less exploration/production, and higher gasoline prices. Gasoline went from $0.59/gallon in 1978 to $1.08 in 1979. As far as profits, half of all US corporate profits, these last dozen years, have been in the financials. Exxon's share was in there with McDonald's, mom'n'pop businesses, Sears, etc.

Funny-odd: I recall an opinion poll in the early 1970s, asked among the Hippies at the University of Texas: What percentage profit do you think should be okay for corporations? Most answers: Up to ten percent, no problem. I found that interesting, as most corporations at the time were in the 3% to 5% range. Today we have Exxon at around 9% and "straight" folks are whining?

Oil at $120/bbl = about $3/gallon before refining. At $4/gallon at the pump, look what you get for your dollar: Transportation to a refinery, refining, transportation to a distributor, transportation to the retailer. Exxon's profits are in there with the refiner, the distributor and the retailer. So, what's the problem? Exxon's profit of around eight cents per gallon is roughly $3.20 per barrel.

Governments own or control 93% of all the world's oil. The average cost to OPEC is around $20/bbl, so OPEC is netting around $100 profit per barrel. Question for the class: Who's making the "excess, evil profits"? Me, I'd sure rayther have a picture of Ben Franklin than three Washingtons and two dimes.

Speculators: They provide stability to markets, whether oil or grain or precious metals. They provide information as to likely prices at some future time. So, the farmer has a clue as to what price to expect for his wheat or corn, and adjusts his planting accordingly. Same for oil companies or gold miners.

Oil shale? Shell and others have been trying figure out some economical way to get oil from the parent rock. Heating in place is being tried, but that takes a helluva lot of electricity. The shale could be strip mined and taken somewhere for more standardized processing--which takes both energy and water. Lots of water. Oil shale is located in what is essentially a desert area. The Athabasca tar sands have the same problems, but less severe.

We've gone out of the deepwater offshore drilling capability due to the disincentives created by Congress. Figure up to ten years for those billion-dollar platforms to be producing. Near-shore, we have a few hundred mothballed rigs which could be in place and producing within maybe three years. Environmental questions about it? Well, if you want good fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, you go to the rigs, 'cause that's where the fish are. Fish ain't totally stupid about their environment, although Congress is.

Overall, looking at fiscal and monetary policy issues, McCain would be far less harmful to our economy and our billfolds than Obama. Simple as that.

Art
 
Our problem is clearly our elected reps, and, I mean congress. They get driven around in limos, and fly private jets ala Nancy what's her name, and, we foot the bill.

The ONE thing I like about the Obama add is something I think should have been done a LONG time ago. We can give 50 Billion to Africa. Well, how about 50 billion in tax dollars to Kali to make up for the Enron scam, Bush? Cover EVERY roof with solar panels, using Federal money, and, put PG&E out of business, or cut the heck out of it. After Enron, their reaction has been to raise our electric bill by 100%. Yes, we are paying TWICE what we paid last year, and, we've lowered our electric use by about 15%.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top