# Obama and the Big Lie



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_ ... /democrats

Obama just doesn't get or maybe he does? if he can bull**** people into thinking higher gas prices are to be blamed on Washington leaders, well hell i guess he can sell ice cubes to Eskimos! China and Asia together have just surpassed US demand for imported oil with both countries expected to add 100's of thousands of new cars to the highways very soon.
Tatu, an auto maker in India is making a $2,500 disposable car......suppose oil demand might just grow a bit more over there?
Obama is spouting trash as usual, blaming Washington politics for everything and it damn sure won't "change" when he gets there. He has a lot to learn! :eyeroll:


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Funny, I was actually talking to someone about this yesterday...

I agree that the main factor influencing high oil prices is supply and demand. China mainly.

Now this is scary...


> China to have 140 million cars by 2020
> (Aggencies)
> Updated: 2004-09-04 10:42
> 
> ...


Having a 150 cars per 1,000 is an insane increase during that short of a time period.

This is from 2005


> India has 6 cars per thousand people and China's number comes in at a shockingly low 6.7 cars per thousand people. Compare these figures with the developed nations -
> 
> France - 491 cars
> US - 481 cars
> ...


So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why oil prices have increased. It is only going to get worse...much, much worse. We need take drastic measures to reduce our need for oil. It has nothing to do with the environment, it has to do with our country being able to function. Our entire infrastructure is built off of the premise of cheap oil. When gas hits $10.00 a gallon, which it will within a decade...we better be driving vehicles that get 80-100 miles to the gallon or vehicles that are fueled by something else.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

As for Bush being responsible for high oil prices... :lol: 


> "You know that since George Bush has become president, gas has basically tripled in price. Now, Bush is an oil man. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just saying that if we had elected Colonel Sanders president, and the price of chicken had tripled, I'd be a little suspicious."
> 
> -Bill Maher


From what I said in my previous post I'm not placing blame on Bush, at least not the majority of it. The biggest reason why we have high prices is like I said, supply and demand.

With that being said, we can blame politicians to some extent for the high prices. I'm not delusional, I realize that there's no way we'd ever have $1.50 gas with the world economy the way it is.

Today's gas price in Grand Forks is $3.53. Is it possible that if our politicians weren't complete morons that it would be $3.00, or maybe even as low as $2.50? I think so.

Like I pointed out, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that oil prices are high and only going to get higher. We've known this for years. So why wasn't anything done?

Congress finally approved the first automobile fuel economy increase last December. It was the first in *32 years*. Unfortunately it also requires a six-fold increase in ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022...so you could argue that they dropped the ball overall, again....:eyeroll:

So yes, IMO politicians do have something to do with high prices.

It's politics that are responsible for the unilateral pushing of ethanol, not energy independence or common sense. If it wasn't for IA's caucus and the ag companies, there's no way any politician would be stupid enough to not see the boondoggle ethanol is.

It's also politics that are responsible for low fuel economy. Detroit didn't want to raise fuel economy, and neither did the oil companies.

It's really stupid politics which are why we are in the middle east trying to stake our flag in the oil fields there. We're going to end up spending $trillions there trying to secure our stakes for the last of the dinosaurs before they go extinct.

If we had spent that money on increasing fuel mileage and true alernative fuels we wouldn't have to be there putting our country at risk by pizzing off a bunch of religous nut-jobs. We get 60% of our oil from OPEC. So that means we get 40% from ourselves or elsewhere. I think it's totally possible that we could decrease our dependency to the point where we don't need to do business with OPEC, or at least substantially decrease it.

We're the biggest consumer of oil...if we cut our usage in half, think how much that would decrease demand and lower prices alone?


> #1 United States: 20,730,000 bbl/day
> #2 China: 6,534,000 bbl/day
> #3 Japan: 5,578,000 bbl/day
> #4 Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day
> ...


So the politicians are also to blame because they knew this was coming and did nothing.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I forgot to add that it's also politicians who are at fault for not being able to balance a budget. Every time they sell more bonds they dillute the value of the dollar, making it worth less.

If our dollar was worth more, it wouldn't take $115-120 of them to purchase a barrel of oil.

So that has also contributed to higher gas prices.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

matt-

you are exactly correct, the misguided monetary policy of this country and the continual devaluation of the dollar only drives the price of oil up.

if Bernake lowers rates again, which won't make any difference to the economic recovery, assuming we even have one, the price of oil will soon hit $130 a barrel, without further political turmoil or hurricanes in the Gulf region. there is no long term relief in sight, more ethanol production is a joke and will only push up the prices of food and fuel. it is amazing the stock market has rallied 600-700 points over the last 10 days, since the long term outlook is anything but good. enjoy your rebate check, it won't last long and if Obama is elected you will pay it..and then some..back very soon in 2009....oh yes we will!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> He has a lot to learn! :eyeroll:


Just curious H9494

What is your background? Education? Job?

Where/how do you get your advanced knowledge of politics from?

If you insist on trying to drag Obama thru the mud, and call his credentials, education and position statements into question, it seems only fair that we have an understanding of yours too...

I mean, I'm certain Obama, being a Harvard Law educated scholar, couldn't hold a candle to your intellectual muscle right?

You may disagree with his politics, but don't call his (or his wife's) intelligence or education into question. I'm fairly certain you guys wouldn't have the same LSAT score.. if per se... you were both applying to law school.

If you know what I mean...

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You may disagree with his politics, but don't call his (or his wife's) intelligence or education into question.


That is an interesting point. As I have a secondary education degree myself let me pass on some of what I learned from educational professors. Education is a measure of training, not intelligence. One example they gave was: We all think of Einstein as the most brilliant mind we can think of. Yet, there may have been a native sitting in a hut somewhere on earth with no education at all that had more mental capacity than Einstein. He just had no education (training) and the world knew nothing of him. Many years ago when not everyone had an education brilliant people were never known. In contrast today there are many educated people who are total idiots. They understand the small field they majored in, and fail to comprehend the big picture.

I for one certainly wouldn't call Obama's or his wife's education into question, but I would call their intelligence into question. Perhaps brilliant people in their narrow background, but they certainly don't understand taxation, firearms, religion, etc etc. and lack what many of us would refer to as common sense.

Oh, ya, I had a professor who said a specialist is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.  His point was that a specialist knows his field very well, but that as your view becomes more narrow (specialized) you loose sight of other things in the periphery. My personal experience is you can't tell a specialist anything, because they think they know everything. They are some of the smartest, but also some of the dumbest people I have met.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/g ... 8A8A0D5%7D

ryan- please pass this on to your buddy, Barack, so he can stop with the false claims of any administration causing higher oil prices. his tactic is cheap and baseless, but i expect it to continue. educated people know it is not true, even you know better.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

While I am no Obama fan, the administration can be blamed for the price of oil for one reason, their economic policy has destroyed the value of the dollar, hence, oil costs more.


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

Everything can not be blamed on an administration. Pres. Bush has little to nothing to do with any of this however congress does and look who controls it.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Nice job Ryan. You can't say anything about the post so you put the posters education in question. Please tell me what difference it makes, everyone has the right. I've worked with some very well educated people in my career. Most of those had no clue what planet they were on, but if you asked about their particular curriculum they were the brightest. Get off your horse and staying on topic.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

thanks, but i am getting used to Ryan now, he prefers personal issues disregarding the thread, no biggie, he is what he is and so is Obama, very raw and uninformed, naive and foolishly so at times, but what more could you expect from a 3 year senator from Illinois who refused to spend meaningful time in Washington and simply runs on "change" and the notion he can be a unifying force in an environment he avoided?

anyway, catch a glimpse of Pelosi and her comment below. she is another clueless liberal.....sad and we pay people like her as elected officials, well, of course she is a koolaid drinker from California..lol

http://www.freedomswatch.org/Edit/Press ... -Hill.aspx


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Back to the issue at hand...

The problem of higher oil prices isn't Washington's fault. But Washington should have seen this problem coming and they should have done something about it. Can we all agree that is a fair statement?

So with that being said, I agree with a lot of what Obama said. I will say that there is some posturing being done. Of course there is since he is a politician afterall, and they all do it.

We do have a lot of special interests influencing policy that could have helped deter the extremity of the crisis we're now in. Which is really the core of his message IMO. He's saying the politicians we've had, both Republican and Democrat, have failed to address this growing problem. Which is true. So I don't see why the message he's delivering can be considered as bullshyte.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

it is bull**** because world demand trumps the greedy bastards in the oil industry. just watch, if Obama wins, he won't be able to do anything about world oil demand or ensuing price rises, supply and demand. i guarantee you 4 years from now an Obama administration would feel hapless in their attempt to curtail oil price increases.

he may institute a windfall profits tax on big oil, but guess what, the consumer will pay for it in higher oil prices as big oil will just choose to refine less oil....they are already doing that and speculators/hedge funds are biding up oil futures on the spot market since the dollar has been devalued..both aid the increase in oil prices.

the whole interest rate/dollar fiasco begun in earnest on Greenspan's watch.....he kept the prime rate way too low for way too long.....that's how cheap money found it's way into housing.

Obama's claims are unfounded, except for monetary controls by the FED.
Bernake is less than qualified to be running the show, agreed.


----------

