if he has alzheimers.
The Bush administration and its illegal wars holds the blame in the
surging energy costs. Yes, it does.
On Mar 27, 8:27 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if Elizabeth Kolbert is really as stupid as she sounds here, or if
> this is just a "puff piece/feel good rhetoric" for far left extremist
> Moonbats?
>
> Of course the Obama Administration , holds blame in the surging energy costs
> and there is no question that this has been by design. If President Obama
> wanted to end the skyrocketing prices of oil, he could do so tomorrow, by
> announcing that we are going to start drilling in the Gulf, or anywhere,
> and approve the Canadian pipeline. This would cause the speculators to
> immediately drive the costs down probably several dollars a barrel, and by
> the end of the week, we would be twenty to thirty dollars a barrel cheaper
> than we are today.
>
> No, the Obama Administration has said publicly it wants higher energy
> costs.....Where was Liz? Probably smoking the ganja as she tried to teach
> the world to sing......
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A Lot of Gas
> > by Elizabeth Kolbert
> > April 2, 2012 inShare9 Print E-Mail Single Page Related Links
> > Ask the Author: Join a live chat with Elizabeth Kolbert about gas
> > prices on Monday, March 26th, at 3 P.M. E.T. Keywords
>
> > Gas Prices; Oil; Energy; (Pres.) Barack Obama; Mitt Romney; 2012
> > Election; Election Campaigns
>
> > Last week, Mitt Romney, who, it now seems, is going to become the
> > Republican nominee whether anybody likes it or not, called on
> > President Barack Obama to fire three of his Cabinet members: the
> > Energy Secretary, Steven Chu; the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar; and
> > the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson.
> > According to Romney, the three have spent the past few years carrying
> > out a not-so-secret plan to raise the price of gasoline at the pump.
> > Only by firing the "gas-tax trio," Romney told Fox News, can the
> > President demonstrate that he did not approve of this plan. "Time for
> > them to go," Romney said.
>
> > Romney's remarks came just days after Louisiana's governor, Bobby
> > Jindal, also on Fox, accused the Administration of driving up the cost
> > of gas in the service of its "radical" agenda. "The reality is,
> > gasoline prices have doubled under this President—highest prices for
> > oil and gasoline in a hundred and fifty years," Jindal said. "People
> > used to think it was because of incompetence from the Obama
> > Administration on energy. I think it's because of ideology." (As far
> > as "reality" goes, Jindal's characterization of gas prices is
> > inaccurate; they were higher in 2008, under President George W. Bush.)
> > Romney and Jindal, meanwhile, were echoing comments made by Newt
> > Gingrich, who accused the President of adhering to a "radical
> > ideology, which wants to artificially raise the cost of energy." And
> > Gingrich was following Rick Santorum, who, back in February, declared
> > that Obama's energy policies are based on a "phony theology" that
> > "elevates the earth above man."
>
> > Like almost anything that the Republican candidates can manage to
> > agree on, the Obama Administration gas-price-hike conspiracy theory is
> > nearly a hundred-per-cent hokum. The fakery begins with the theory's
> > premise: that the President could, if he wanted to, reduce the price
> > of oil. Oil, as it is well known, is a global commodity traded on a
> > global market. Gasoline prices have risen—they are up roughly fifteen
> > per cent since the start of the year—mostly because demand is climbing
> > in countries like China and because instability in the Middle East has
> > prompted worries about supply. (Since sabre rattling on Iran tends to
> > increase those worries, candidates like Santorum, who calls the
> > Administration's policies toward Iran "appeasement," are almost
> > certainly aggravating the very situation they decry.)
>
> > But an idea doesn't have to be true, or even especially convincing, to
> > be politically effective, and nowadays it's the most rational policy
> > options that seem to have the hardest time getting heard. When it
> > comes to gas prices, it's been clear for, well, let's just say forever
> > that the cost of gasoline in America is actually too low. Cheap gas
> > generates sprawl and traffic. It discourages the use of mass transit
> > and the development of alternative fuels. It contributes to regional
> > smog and to global climate change. The easiest and most obvious
> > solution has long been to raise the federal gasoline tax, which now
> > stands at only 18.4 cents a gallon. Among economists, there's
> > widespread support for this idea, including from Greg Mankiw, a
> > Harvard professor who happens to be a top adviser to Romney. Writing
> > in the Times earlier this year, Mankiw observed, "Economists who have
> > added up all the externalities associated with driving conclude that a
> > tax exceeding $2 a gallon makes sense." He went on, "By taxing bad
> > things more, we could tax good things less."
>
> > from the issuecartoon banke-mail thisLast week, as the Republicans
> > continued to hammer away at the President on gas prices, he set off on
> > an energy-themed cross-country tour. (House Speaker John Boehner
> > dubbed it a "tour de farce.") The tour, which coincided with a
> > freakish March heat wave, included visits to a solar plant in Boulder
> > City, Nevada; an oil field in Maljamar, New Mexico; and the site of a
> > proposed pipeline in Cushing, Oklahoma. At each of these stops, Obama
> > touted what he has taken to calling his "all-of-the-above energy
> > strategy." He said that he favored more domestic oil production and
> > more solar-power installations, a cleaner environment and a stronger
> > economy. He made much of the fact that, under his watch, domestic
> > energy production has steadily increased and that enough new oil and
> > gas pipeline had been laid to "encircle the earth and then some."
>
> > "Since I took office, our dependence on foreign oil has gone down
> > every single year," the President said in Cushing. "Last year, we
> > imported one million fewer barrels per day than the year before."
> > Obama sounded, as he generally does, thoughtful and reasonable, and
> > the figures that he cited were, for the most part, accurate. Indeed,
> > as the Times reported last week, dependency on foreign oil has fallen
> > dramatically in recent years. But, in terms of what matters most, the
> > President's energy tour was a dispiriting affair. In the course of two
> > days, he made four speeches. The number of times he mentioned the
> > major impact of America's energy use—global warming—was zero. In
> > Oklahoma, he announced that he was expediting the construction of the
> > southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline. The announcement made no
> > sense—except, perhaps, as political theatre. A few months ago, the
> > Administration refused to allow construction of the pipeline's
> > northern leg, precisely on the ground that Republicans were trying to
> > rush the permitting process. The whole point of the Keystone pipeline
> > is to transport more dirty oil from Canada's tar sands, which goes to
> > show that you can't be in favor of more pipelines and in favor of a
> > cleaner environment at the same time. A smorgasbord energy strategy
> > is, as Joe Romm observed recently on the blog Climate Progress, hardly
> > any strategy at all: "Just a year ago, 'all-of-the-above' was actually
> > a standard Republican talking point, so much so that Democrats
> > routinely mocked it."
>
> > What the country needs—and has always needed—is an energy policy that,
> > instead of pandering to Americans' sense of entitlement, would compel
> > us finally to change our ways. In addition to a phased-in increase in
> > the gas tax, it would include a comprehensive, economy-wide tax on
> > carbon, or, alternatively, a cap-and-trade system. As it turns out,
> > Mankiw isn't the only senior person in a Republican campaign to see
> > the importance of a new policy. When Romney was governor of
> > Massachusetts, he presided over the introduction of one of the
> > country's first cap-and-trade programs, for the six largest power
> > plants in the state. And in his book "No Apology" he wrote that
> > "higher energy prices would encourage energy efficiency." Perhaps,
> > once he secures the nomination, he can Etch A Sketch his way back to
> > reality, and challenge Obama to do the same. ♦
>
> > Read more
> >http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/04/02/120402taco_talk_kolb...
>
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy
>
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment