<p>Tega:</p>
<p>I really don’t know. But the 2.8 billion statement links to the website I cited. I think Obama must have used that website or one similar.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am sure that McCain will have video of Jimmy Carter, wearing his cardigan sweater in the Oval Office ready for a TV ad by Monday. Democrats make it so easy for them.</p>
<p>“The stupidest stunt (or gimmick) out there is Obama’s proposal to give everyone a one time $1000 for energy cost, and he will finance it by putting a windfall tax on oil companies.”</p>
<p>What Bush did was provide everyone with a $1,200 check, paid for by borrowing more money from our owners in China and Saudi Arabia, without any plan to ever pay it back. Obama’s is a far more conservative approach. (I happen not to like either, and think the best way to curb energy use is through HIGHER rather than lower prices.)</p>
<p>Mini, there is no point in attempting to use reason with ideologues.</p>
<p>re: tire-inflators…do you really think that folks just won’t then drive more, i.e., spending their new found $200 savings on more gas? (The net price effect of which would be zero.) :rolleyes:</p>
<p>That’s what happens when gas prices are lower, as well. Folks drive more, and drive prices back up.</p>
<p>I’m still trying to figure out what big government action Republicans want to work on that will fix gas prices in five weeks.</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>The Dems want another $1200+ check! They spent the first one! Bush did it to make the Dems happy, but it’s never enough. The Dems always have their hand out for more!</p>
<p>There is always the possibility that gas prices were artificially low, and have now been “fixed” by the free market. One would think that’s what all these right-thinking Republicans would conclude.</p>
<p>The Big Government people have always been the Dems! Welfare, Hud, etc!</p>
<p>Re post # 27: I rest my case.</p>
<p>With higher prices, oil and gas companies might actually decide to drill on the 68,000,000 acres in leases they already have. But the big government Republicans want to lower prices, which will take away the “free market incentive”.</p>
<p>Here’s the map where offshore drilling is off limits: </p>
<p>[Where</a> is offshore drilling allowed? - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/map.offshore.drilling/index.html]Where”>Where is offshore drilling allowed? - CNN.com)</p>
<p>They drill where there’s oil!</p>
<p>No, they drill where they can make a profit. BIG DIFFERENCE (a Republican should know that.)</p>
<p>It’s not just a question of “where there’s oil.” It’s a question of “where there’s oil that’s profitable to drill for at the current/projected price per barrel.”</p>
<p>Edit: Cross-posted with mini.</p>
<p>bluebayou:</p>
<p>Yes. We’ve been aware for a long time that oil was bound to become more expensive, especially as many countries are consuming more (India and the PRC, in particular, but other industrializing countries as well), but as long as gas was cheap, Americans were happy to buy gas-guzzlers. The conservation measures started in the late 1970s were largely abandoned.</p>
<p>Mini: It does not make sense to drill where it’s expensive. I’m for figuring out the costs and benefits of offshore drilling not only in terms of the drilling costs themselves but loss of income from fishing tourism, and other associated costs. And then make a decision as to whether to go ahead or not, knowing that the gas would not be available for several years.</p>
<p>In Alaska, in exchange for oil rights, and as part of the public/private partnership, millions of dollars are returned to the citizens of the state. There is no reason the same can’t be done with ANY new drilling, with the royalties reinvested in energy conservation/alternative energy, again in public/private partnerships.</p>
<p>Higher prices - even from a Republican “free market” perspective - are part of the solution, not the problem. It’s only a problem when the pandering Republicans decide to do their “thing”, though I still can’t quite figure out what the “thing” is.</p>
<p>(As noted, I don’t like Obama’s plans much either, though at least I know what they are.)</p>
<p>“Mini: It does not make sense to drill where it’s expensive.”</p>
<p>Of course it makes sense to drill where it’s expensive, if the rate of return is high enough. But, if I were part of a colluding oil oligopoly, I wouldn’t want to drill too much these days. Enough to keep the profits flowing, but not enough to depress prices. Watch our owners the Saudis - they are really, really good at this, and what makes it extra “special” is that when they make money through their government-owned oil company, they loan back “our” money to us at interest, and Bush writes us $1,200 checks against it. Neat deal!</p>
<p>High prices are praised by the Al Gore followers not the Republicans. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the other Dems want higher gas prices thats why they turned off the lights and left town.</p>
<p>I know. Big government Republican corporate socialists can’t stand the operation of a “free market”.</p>
<p>Far fewer people are being killed on the highways because of higher fuel costs. One happy way of looking at it. :)</p>
<p>Socialists? Look the Dems won’t even vote on an energy policy! Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Dems shut down the voice of the public today by turning off the lights and the microphones.</p>
<p>The Dems want to raise taxes to grow the government more.</p>