We want higher Gas prices: Obama Official

Energy Secretary Stephen Chu has already stated that he wants Gasoline Prices to reach the levels of Europe.  On Tuesday Chu did something that is rare among Obama officials.  He told the truth.  When asked if the goal of the Energy Department was to get the price of gasoline Down, Chu replied:   

“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.

“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,”

Well we have to give Chu credit for being candid.  He wants higher gas prices to justify giving $500,000,000 bailouts to rich Obama contributors such as George Kaiser and the Solyndra fiasco.  Chu is actually a bit refreshing compared to the lying Eric Holder who still can’t tell us about Fast and Furious over a year after a U.S. Border Control Agent was murdered. 
Remember Liberals don’t care about other people’s pain.  What $8.00 gallon gasoline does to the average working stiff is just collateral damage to an appartchik like Chu. The damage being done to independent truck drivers can’t be imagined.  Liberals want control of the economy so they can dole out sweetheart deals like wind turbine manufacturing  to political cronies.   

61 thoughts on “We want higher Gas prices: Obama Official”

  1. You guys keep rooting for America to fail. Your bitterness and pessimism is turning out to be real popular.

    And, while I know your ears are plugged with Fox News jibber jabber, here is what the President actually said – if you care to take a look.

    The recent spike in gas prices has been another painful reminder of why we have to invest in this technology. [...]
    But you and I both know that with only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices – not when we consume 20 percent of the world’s oil. We need an all-of-the-above strategy that relies less on foreign oil and more on American-made energy – solar, wind, natural gas, biofuels, and more.

  2. So we have a choice. Right now, some folks in Washington would rather spend another $4 billion on subsidies to oil companies each year. Well you know what? We’ve been handing out these kinds of taxpayer giveaways for nearly a century. And outside of Congress, does anyone really think that’s still a good idea? I want this Congress to stop the giveaways to an oil industry that’s never been more profitable, and invest in a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising.

    Oh how I pine for the days when ‘consevative’ meant sober, level headed and thifty. Old style conservatives would be all for not throwing tax money at oil company executives bonuses.

    Oh well. Now consevative means hatre filled gas bag. American is actually worse off for that, but we’ll get by while you guys wallow in your hatred and bitterness.

  3. NotJason330:

    a) The amount of subsidies that we should pay to oil companies is: $0.00
    I would imagine that 99.99% of all conservatives would agree with me on that.

    b) I have been challenging anyone to show me what subsidies we ARE paying to oil companies. No one has been able to identify one yet.
    I have said to many liberals that if they can identify a subsidy being paid or given to any oil company, I can join you in fighting to repeal it. But until you can IDENTIFY any such subsidies, HOW CAN I JOIN YOU IN OPPOSING them?
    The only “subsidy” identified is THE SAME tax rules that apply to EVERYONE, including you and the local diner and the dry cleaner down the street and the solo website designer. If you lost money in 2008, 2009, and 2010, and then have a banner year in 2011, you get to deduct the losses in 2008, 2009, and 2010 from your 2011 profits.

    c) You quote the Prevaricator in Chief as saying America has “only 2% of the world’s oil reserves,”
    Where does this number come from?
    If I claimed that 98% of all lies are told by liberals, wouldn’t you want to know where this number comes from?
    As many have commented, the 2% number comes from EXCLUDING all of the oil reserves that the Government has arbitrarily made off limits.
    The 2% number is *AFTER* the government blocking access to the oil that is availabe inside the United States.
    The only way to find oil reserves IS TO DRILL.

    So the stupidity of Obama’s comment is appalling.
    We found oil reserves, in every country, only by DRILLING to search for and discover (“strike”) oil.
    So the presumption that oil reserves of 2% is a given BEFORE you start drilling shows that Obama is a nitwit. You *FIND* oil by drilling.

  4. “But I just don’t see how Obama can claim to have made things better.”

    I never said he did. Nor do I believe he did. All I said I ever say is that there is a difference between spin and truth.

    We know why gas prices rise and playing 6 degrees of Obama is not the reason. There is plenty to criticize Obama for without resorting to that. For instance, instead of focusing on incremental changes in policy and legislation that would improve the economy, he instead went like gang busters on a health insurance plan that was too big, too much, too soon, and that did not adress spiraling health care costs. He should be taken to task for that.

    There are other areas where he failed as well. Financial institutions continue to run amok doing business virtually as usual with little to no constraints. The housing industry sucks and the feeble attempts to resurrect the industry have been, well feeble. See, these are real criticisms and he deserves every one of them!

  5. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/petroleum-industry-calls-interior-secretary-s-oil-claims-fundamentally-absurd

    Petroleum Industry Calls Interior Secretary’s Oil Claims ‘Fundamentally Absurd’
    By Penny Starr
    March 13, 2012

    Salazar also said that oil and gas companies are “sitting on” 7,000 permits that would allow them to start producing immediately.

    API’s Milito dismissed Salazar’s claims and said that even if leases are in place, permits are needed to start the process that results in productive oil and gas operations and cited Alaska as an example.

    “The government, over the course of the past five years, has not provided the permits to allow the industry to develop any – let alone one – of hundreds of leases that they currently have in Alaska,” Milito said.

    “The administration says its policies have supported more development and that oil production is rising, but most of today’s production increases relate to projects begun before it came into office, as well as to what is happening on state and private lands,” he said. “Moreover, from 2009 to 2011, the fact is that production from federal lands and federal waters combined declined significantly for both oil and natural gas.”

  6. But you and I both know that with only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices….

    I haven’t read extensively about this issue but just a simple Wikipedia search says:

    Proven reserves are those reserves claimed to have a reasonable certainty (normally at least 90% confidence) of being recoverable under existing economic and political conditions, with existing technology.

    So if Obama was willing to invest the same amount in trying to produce oil and gas as he is in companies like Solyndra or trying to produce algae then his supposedly static number could change.

    The view that government should “invest” based on coercion/taxes would be one thing if Obama’s utterly ignorant and stupid views about energy were known to be linked to the production of wealth but it’s another when the record shows abysmal failure and the destruction of wealth and the use of energy. On another note, what is supposedly the vast difference between Solyndra or whatever other corporate cronies Obama “partners” with and oil companies other than the state of Obama’s ludicrous ideology or the amount of his campaign contributions? After all, they’re all corporations motivated by profit.

    Note that it’s easy for the rich to entertain themselves with ideas about “saving the planet” based on pseudo-science produced by patrons of politicians but it’s the poor that actually pay much more for it in proportion to their wealth. The Leftist solution is to raise taxes on the rich to pay for the moral vanity that motivates their Marxist view of economics… yet note how they allow for the manipulation of the monetary system so that wealth is continually redistributed from the poor to the rich anyway.

    For all your demagogue’s rhetoric, it is the poor and the middle class that will pay for your vanity. If the poor weren’t merely a means to the end of stoking your moral vanity and you really wanted to help them then you both would simply give all your wealth away instead of developing systems in which you can advocate for the illusion of “the government” helping the poor. But I suppose if they have less ability to buy their own food then maybe your demagogues can link food stamps to healthy food and claim to be cutting health care costs for the public good and saving their lives that way. Too bad that will be just another illusion though…

  7. We know why gas prices rise and playing 6 degrees of Obama is not the reason.

    Tell me how Obama is part of the solution and not part of the problem.

    Apparently there is an interesting shift going on though:

    Goldman Sachs this year:
    Romney, Mitt (R) $493,430
    Obama, Barack (D) $64,474
    vs.
    Obama, Barrack (D) $994,795
    McCain, John (R) $230,095

    Isn’t it ironic that those engaged in the process of destroying our economic language are still at liberty to state their values with it?

    Interesting to note that individuals can still raise their voice:

    It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.
    These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.
    ….
    Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again….Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

    Americans will need to realize the same types of things in general about the exponential value of moral truth and its link to wealth while following the conservative impulse to get their “culture right again.”

  8. When someone says that you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to prophesy about a trajectory or trend in the future it’s usually true. Yet… maybe there is a lot of intelligence and physical or economic knowledge given birth to in the realization that one can know a few self-evident, moral and spiritual truths without knowing everything.

    It’s like the ancient Jewish prophets used to say, “IF everyone continues to dance around the pagan fires while following the pulse of impulse all day THEN another nation will come and destroy you. Behold, the Word and the Logos!” It’s actually pretty logical.

  9. “Tell me how Obama is part of the solution and not part of the problem.”

    Ahh, but I never said he was part of the solution. In fact, my knowledge and experience with the federal government tells me that Congress is the problem and could be the solution. I am consistent in my assertions that Congress is primarily responsible for our economic woes. The President executes the laws which are passed by Congress. I will keep harping on that point, hoping without hope that someone will have an AHA! moment. Congress is dysfunctional because of the severe partisanship that creates a barrier to building consensus.

  10. Congress is dysfunctional because of the severe partisanship….

    Examples and evidence in this instance?

    What is it that they could do if they would just all get along and so on to lower gas prices? And why would people who tend to like to imagine that American over consumption and over use of energy is “destroying the planet” or making other people poor want to lower gas prices anyway?

Comments are closed.