Congress has very little to do with the price of gas.

 

Production has been increasing lately, prices will come down, its just a matter of how much. And if they don't you can blame the board room of the large oil companies.

 

yea probably either way we need a third party soon

 

I do think its directly related to him....

there are a few things that should not have happened that have had a huge effect on supply and demand... IRAQ for one.

Then add in that he and congress haven't done jack **** to control the oil companies and haven't put much pressure on OPEC to do anything to help. And why should they OPEC countries for the most part could care less.

Toss in the industrialization of China, the building in Dumai, the rebuilding of Iraq, the rebuilding of Russia, etc. As you've said... there is an increase in demand that is outpacing supply. Supply that's being produced by choice. The production is there... its the release of product that is not. They are increasing production just not enough.

And simply increasing production isn't the only answer. World wide things need to change.

 

I just ****ing said that... then someone said I was wrong... WTF is going on here. A fire is coming at my house I can't focus on this ****.


and congress CAN have an effect as can our president. They just don't want to. Why should they? They're all rich anyways. This **** doesn't effect them.

 

What does that have to do with the price of oil? What exactly is your point?

 

It is not directly related to him, he does have some influence, but not much. And asking the Saudi's the lower prices is not one of the things he can do to help lower prices.

And yes, as I said, increased demand in developing countries, mostly in Asia, a consistent, yet insufficient, supply level and speculation from wall street are to blame. As well as lack of regulation of the oil industry in America, the oil lobby is out of control, they have more money than you could imagine and it only keeps going up and up as their profits continue to rise at historical levels and just about everyone on capitol hill is in their pockets.

 

kinda off topic just dissapointed with how congress hasnt done much except try to tax oil companies.. not sure how much good that would do if any.

 

CONGRESS CANT DO ****!!!!!!

What is congress going to do to decrease demand in aisa? And Congress doesn't want to tax them, they want an explaination for the record profits as people are quickly losing the ability to get them selves to work and feed their families, all directly related to the high cost of oil. Do you want a subsidy from the government? Where is that money going to come from? And what effect will that have on our economy?

 

as you know from the thread i posted yesterday im for drilling anywhere we can and if congress agrees to drilling we can easily increase our supply. problem with congress is their being stubborn jackasses about the whole situation.. they say "alternate energy" which could take ten years for us to fully take advantage.. we need something now the easiest route to our shortage is right in front of us..

 

Yeah, **** the environment!! Lets drill in Alaska for oil so we can first ruin it by drilling, then we can ruin it through global warming created by the oil we drilled from there!! Its a win win! With the proper incentives from Washington alternative energy could be used with much greater efficiency than drilling in Alaska or wherever you propose we drill. The solution is not to ramp up production now and worry about what happens in ten years, the solution is to look to the future now and decrease our dependency on oil, not to ignore the situation to have to worry about it later.

Government money is much better spent looking for green/alternative energy solutions rather than increasing supply.

 

Dead on on that last post and dead on on this one. I agree with what you're saying for sure.

One of the best things Clinton did for this country while he was in office besides getting us in the black which means **** now was protect a huge chunk of america's natural beauty.... and resources... which also means **** now because bush unprotected a huge chunk of what clinton protected. Like clearcutting in alaska. Clear cutting in general should be illegal. It has absolutely no benefits. It destroys the land for future generations of trees. Leaves areas wide open for mud slides and flooding. etc. You can get just as much wood it just takes longer to select cut and back plant.

Now he wants to drill. Stupid. Drilling alaska is a short term solution and a last option. Draining the U.S. of all its natural resources to solve the world economy issues is not the solution. It'll just set us up to be SCREWED in the future.

I will say this... canada hordes their ****. I used to hate it. Now I agree with it. They're gonna be sitting pretty in 100 years.

The U.S. needs to start worrying about itself for a while.



oh and as for destroying alaska and the amazon with clear cutting.... that is having a HUGE effect on global warming. Nothing to filter the air means more damage. Trees are good... mmm kay.

 

who else besides the U.S cares so much about the enviorment? we alone cannot prevent climate change it has to be a worldwide effort. im totally for alternate energy and im not suggesting we live off oil forever but do what it takes to solve our current crisis for our economy sake the consumers are hurting and small buisnesses are as well relief needs to come sooner rather than later.

how are we suppose to develop alternate energy without current energy(oil)? to make alternate energy a reality one day we first have to get there and we cant get there on an empty tank can we..

if you care about the envoirment sooo much maybe a little too much and your willing to let the economy suffer and crash then the large oil companies truly have us by the *****..

btw im not really a big fan of Gore and his "global warming scare" and dont see how and why i should believe hes qualified to tell me im causing global warming. many many scientists dissapprove of his theory read up on it..

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

 

If it does, then I win a little bet that I have.

 

the sti burns gas more than the 350z =( or maybe i just drive too much with the sti now.