|Gas Prices and Obama
||[Feb. 25th, 2012|01:43 pm]
VIRAL NOTES: "A tone of indignance", is right. The speaker for the White House isn't so much 'indignant', as he is ignorant. However, it is clearly coming from Obama, and the rest of his regime.
President Obama does not "accept responsibility" for high gas prices, his spokesman indicated today, arguing that Obama has done everything he could to bring down the price of oil and blaming the high gas prices on oil price increases caused by global factors.
"The president accepts the responsibility that he identified the next president should accept, back in 2008, which is the need to develop a comprehensive energy policy," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said today when asked if Obama "accept[s] responsibility" for the high price of oil and gas. "If you're suggesting that there is responsibility for a rise in the global price of oil, it's certainly not because of anything he hasn't done to expand domestic oil and gas production," Carney added.
Asked if he believes it is fair for Americans to blame the president, Carney noted that gas price hikes are "a recurrent problem." He added that domestic oil production is at a record high right now and that Obama has opened "millions of acres in the Gulf of Mexico" to drilling.
The conversation today stemmed from yesterday, when Carney was asked about the Keystone XL pipeline. He said that "the president did not turn down the Keystone pipeline," arguing that Republicans prevented a full environmental review from taking place.
Even if we don't go into finding something or someone to blame for increasing gas prices, Obama won't even come close to acting like an executive, and saying "the buck stops here". This is not a solution, nor is it something indicating we're listening to a guy that's even interested in finding one.
Will President Obama do something about high gas prices? No, argued Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest today.
Earnest insisted that there was no "short term solution" for cheaper gas, other than the president's payroll tax cut and refused to discuss releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves.
"If there was a magic wand you could wave, one of the presidents would have waved it," said Earnest arguing that high gas prices were not a new problem.
"Anyone who says that they can wave a wand or plant the magic beans to lead to a reduction in oil prices is just not telling the truth," he added.
Earnest insisted that the President's payroll tax cut would give relief putting an average of $40 back into the pockets of working Americans.
"Thats certainly is an important step to offering a little bit of a financial cushion to those families." he said.
When challenged by reporters about President Obama's claiming credit for an increase domestic oil production, Earnest would only say that "at the end of the day, facts are facts."
Clearly, Obama is over his head. Grant was right, so I'm going to play his video, again:
Grant Cardone is absolutely right. He has done everything but address the problem, and has done nothing but try deflecting blame (that lies squarely on his back), and pointing fingers at everything, and everyone, else, other than himself and his regime. Again, Grant is right in the fact that if he was a real CEO, he'd've been fired, a long time ago, but our government isn't run by people with enough integrity to do what the corporations they malign do.
He claims he's open to suggestion, open to debate, and yet any other solutions are derided and ridiculed by his spokesidiots, with such dismissive crap as "magic beans". Obama is clearly unable to fix the problems, or maybe even unwilling to, and needs to be eliminated from his position, immediately, and preferably by impeachment, to serve as an example to anyone looking to repeat his mistakes and build on them, as he did [James Earl] Carter's. I cannot say enough times that Obama is clearly out of his league and over his head, or he's very malignant, and doing intentional damage. Nothing he has ever suggested has ever been a solution to this increasingly serious problem.
First of all, let's look at some of the things mentioned by the person in the video. Obama did make a lot about the increasing gas prices, using them as a weapon against McCain and Bush, yet offered stupid solutions like keeping your tires properly inflated to save money. That's Obama's solution to the oil crisis.
He claims he's willing to have a "legitimate" policy "debate", and yet when it comes to domestic drilling for oil, he immediately discounts this with no logical, "legitimate" or rational explanation. "We can't drill our way out of this problem". Oh, really? Why not? He says we should be pursing alternative energy resources, then comes up with laughable solutions like using algae.
President Obama admitted today that he does not have a “silver bullet” solution for skyrocketing gas prices, but he proposed alternative energy sources such as “a plant-like substance, algae” as a way of cutting dependence on oil by 17 percent.
“We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance, algae — you’ve got a bunch of algae out here,” Obama said at the University of Miami today. “If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing alright. Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in America.”
The Department of Energy (DOE) currently spends about $85 million on 30 research projects “to develop algal biofuels,” according to the White House, which announced that Obama is committing another $14 million to the idea.
I'm not saying that algae is incapable of producing anything useful, but, once again, like Grant said in his video, Obama is doing nothing but using distraction to keep you from looking right at the real problem, and that real problem is the diminishing supply of oil, the vast majority of which we're stuck getting from foreigners. He says algae will cut our dependence on petroleum some 17% (which I doubt, but...), but the problem is that our overall supply of petroleum is reduced, and the lion's share of that can be blamed on Obama, himself.
That's right: we're down 40%. So he wants to reduce our dependence on the remaining 60% by 17%, as opposed to simultaneously allowing the Private Sector to develop alternative energies and allowing the Private Sector to make up the shortfall in production. Neither Obama nor the DNC are interested in anything "legitimate", nor "debate" (especially legitimate debate). Pelosi, when she was in her disastrous single term as Speaker of the House, violated the law by preventing our Congressional Representatives their power to vote on our behalf, then tried justifying her un-Constitutional, illegal actions by saying:
Pelosi drew derision from her critics for telling the Web site Politico this week that she was blocking a vote on offshore drilling because "I'm trying to save the planet." But she elaborated on that theme Thursday, saying she sees energy independence and fighting global warming as "my flagship issue." She said she will use her power to resist a policy that could increase the country's oil dependency.
"I'm not going to be diverted for a political tactic from a course of action that has a big-picture view - a vision about an energy-independent future that reduces our dependence on fossil fuels ... and focuses on those renewables that are protective of the environment," she said.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/31/MNSH122TA3.DTL#ixzz1nPnzDsGe
When the GOP protested, she ordered the lights and cameras turned off, and for people to duck out under the guise of vacation.
Yeah, she did that, while people were talking.
Obama says we 'can't drill our way out' of this problem. This is clearly a man that has no business experience, and probably doesn't even know how to run a cash register, much less be CEO of a G7 nation with a GDP of $15,087,000,000,000.00. He doesn't understand that business is in the business of making money. People like Princess Pelosi...
...may want to claim that drilling for oil will endanger the environment and cause "global warming"...
...but is unwilling to face facts on AGW "data", and, herself, in spite of years of insider trading [that should've put her in Martha Steward's old prison cell]...
...has no understanding of business. Incidents like the Exxon Valdez are rarities. She thinks every oil drill is a gigantic disaster waiting to happen, like the massive spill in Saudi Arabia. Oh, wait. You've never heard of the gigantic spill in Saudi Arabia? Take a look. Familiarize yourself.
Yeah, more measures Obama's craptacular cabinet didn't have the wherewithal to undertake, as opposed to shaking down BP for billions, then not returning it when the spill quickly cleared up, and very little damage was done. In any event, people don't drill for oil, to create environmental disasters, and I'll be willing to bet they have people on staff that are a lot smarter than some broken down jerk with a degree in political science, and no real science. Exxon-Mobil doesn't drill, so they can get fined billions to hundreds of billions, they drill to make billions to hundreds of billions. When they [liberals like Pelosi and Obama] complained about the Alaskan Pipeline, they said it would be an environmental disaster. Not quite.
Had the left not blocked the vote allow the Private Sector to drill back in 2007, or so, don't you think we'd be a lot better off, now? First of all, business would be back in business. Making good on their oil leases, they're going to go after known deposits, including oil shale. This means hiring who-know-how-many people to get the job done. Construction workers, electricians, land surveyors, mechanical engineers, technicians of all sorts, laborers, etc. Every business connected to their business would get the trickle-down effect (you know; that thing Reagan got laughed at about, resulting in more millionaires than any other time in American history), meaning they're going to have to start hiring people.
See that? That's called job creation.
Knowing that the American public needed that oil yesterday, they're going to make this a rush job, and double-time it on getting that oil out of the ground, refined and in trucks, bound for every corner of the country that needs it.
Know that that does? That lowers prices.
People complained that refining oil shale was too difficult and costly, now with Private Sector technological advances, we have this...
...while the policies of Barack Hussein Obama [overregulation, overtaxation, prevention of progress] has helped bring us this:
So, drilling would've, more than likely, created a job boom and started lowering the cost of fuel. This is something Obama didn't want. Let's look at the rest of what he 'promised' us. He says that he's going to solve this problem by making us [America] independent of foreign oil. The most substantive step he's taken towards that is this:
In doing this, he has not only cut off a reliable, safe source of oil, but he's cost America tens of thousands of jobs...
...and shown that he's a complete liar and hypocrite of a crony capitalist, just out to make some bucks for his friends Warren and Boy George (billionaires; you know, those people he tells us we should hate):
As for his CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards, absolutely stupid. For one, it is not in the power of any president, nor any Congress, to dictate to any private industry what their fuel efficiency standards are to be, in any vehicle. If they have that power, please show me:
For two, after years of working for Ford Motor Company and General Motors, as well as other automotive interests like working for Toyota's Asin Group through IMRA America, engineers have universally condemned these standards as being the product of people that don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.
Chemical physicists know that every molecule has a finite amount of energy that can be harvested from it through whatever means you go through to process it. Look at E87, for instance. E87 is touted as this great, new fuel, but really, its a bust. On the molecular level, it's not as powerful as a regular gasoline molecule, so it doesn't put out as much energy. Furthermore, its not very fuel efficient, meaning you go through a tank of it, faster than you do regular gasoline. Then, you also have to have a car capable of using it; put that in a vehicle that is not E87 rated, and you've just killed your car in a way that fuel system warranties probably won't cover.
On top of all that, these unrealistic, unintelligent "standards" are going to cost the taxpayers lots of money, as well as put more nails in the collective coffins of the automotive industry.
The Obama administration’s new proposal to double the fuel efficiency of cars by 2025 may cost up to $157 billion and add $2,000 to the price of passenger automobiles, according to two federal agencies.
In the proposed rule posted on their websites, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency predict the administration’s new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards would add an average of $2,000 to the price of each new passenger vehicle sold by 2025.
The NHTSA attributes the increased consumer costs to the price of developing new fuel-saving technology. However, the highway agency predicts the costs of the new standards would be offset by benefits of $419 billion to $515 billion.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/16/obamas-new-fuel-standards-to-add-2000-to-car-prices-cost-157b-agencies-say/#ixzz1nQ1oz1JV
So Obama's fix is an unrealistic, unscientific standard that will cost the industry money, as well as cost the consumer money. I don't know where this "419 - 515 billion" is supposed to be coming from, unless its subsidies, because the American taxpayer isn't going to have money to buy these things. To reduce the dependence on oil, Obama's going to raise the cost of things that require oil. Does that sound anywhere even close to intelligent, to you? This is the best the 'smartest man ever to be president' can do?!
Finally, let's look at the fact that cars have to become lighter and lighter materials to promote these fuel standards. Lighter vehicles means weaker materials. In many instances, what was once steel and iron has been replaced by thin aluminum. In some cases, significant percentiles of vehicles have had metals replaced by polycomposites and plastics. They are lightweight, but certainly not very strong, and damned sure nowhere near the strength of iron and steel. The introduction of these standards are responsible for countless deaths.
* According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100 pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks. Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks.12
* A 2001 National Academy of Sciences panel found that constraining automobile manufacturers to produce smaller, lighter vehicles in the 1970s and early 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."13
* An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.
That's right. Congressional overstepping of Constitutional bounds has resulted in countless American deaths.
* "The negative relationship between weight and occupant fatality risk is one of the most secure findings in the safety literature."
-Dr. Robert W. Crandall, Brookings Institution, and John D. Graham, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health19
* "Why Does CAFE kill? It does so because it constrains the production of larger cars and, in most modes of collision, larger, heavier cars are more protective of their occupants than are small cars."
-Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute20
* "[I]n terms of just the total number of lives, when I purchase a larger car, there is a reduction of risk. I'm safer, and so is society overall... We can conclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that when weight is reduced, as it must be under CAFE, we will increase casualties."
-Dr. Leonard Evans, physicist, author of Traffic Safety and president of Science Serving Society21
* "During the past 18 years, the office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress, the National Safety Council, the Brookings Institution, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the General Motors Research Laboratories and the National Academy of Sciences all agreed that reductions in the size and weight of passenger cars pose a safety threat."
-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration22
Where's Obama's address to that problem? Mandate the creation of adamantium? So cars that are about as weak as grade school milk cartons are going to be the wave of the future? Utterly incredible, and pathetic. If questioned about this, the best he could probably come up with is to order auto manufacturers to come up with a better airbag. Making lightweight, unsafe vehicles is going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and save consumers trillions in gas prices, and this is supposed to be a signature event in Obama's regime. This, in spite of the fact that the lightweight cars only really succeed in getting people killed and cost more than what people can afford under Obamanomics, this in spite of the fact that his policies are choking off our oil supply, and this, in spite of the fact that he refuses to allow us to tap our own resources. His "green" energy agenda has been a resounding, complete disaster (no assembly required).
His illegal nationalization of a car company and ordering them to create his dream car has been a financial nightmare, as well as another type of nightmare.
(And, let's not mention the fact that this thing that was supposed to help create jobs, has been outsourced to the Peoples Republic of China, our deadly enemies.)
Indefensible. Obama's just over his head, if this is not deliberate. He's not smart enough to know what a sure thing is, and instead gambles [pisses away] America's money on half-assed bets and schemes that always seem to fall through. He doesn't care, though, because he's still getting paid, and you and I have to pick up the check. You people that blindly defend him need to wake up and realize that you're nothing but drains on the economy, and hurt the country. If you don't like it, go to the PRC and get a job building Chevy volts. Yet, its supposed to be people like me [Conservatives solutionists] and Republicans that take the American people for being "stupid".
I am Virus-X, the Black Avenger, and I approve this message so much, I'm tempted to write it, twice.