Bachmann: "I'll bring back $2 gas" - Page 4

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bachmann: "I'll bring back $2 gas" (Page 4 of 5)

Posted: 8/18/2011 1:37:17 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yes, that is a tricky statement, but what if she can successfully open up the ability to drill all over the US where it is now currently prohibitive?

If she could introduce fiscal policies which strengthen the dollar while the EU implodes I could see it. I doubt she could get enough oil out of the ground fast enough to drop the price that much.

Either way, those are some bold words to say the least.

this.
this kind of promise is a cheap ploy to get votes.
she should explain why gas is high and state she will remove all the barriers to lowering the price of petroleum in the USA
i would like politicians to sigh promises for things they say, so when rubber meats pavement, they cant wiggle their way out of their promises.

Posted: 8/18/2011 1:39:42 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
De-funding the EPA is not only a bad idea, but it is a colossally bad idea.

Many of you are too young to remember:

Do you really want companies like 3M to dump toxins into our rivers? Do the people down stream from industrial plants deserve to get cancer, birth defects, and leukemia?

Do you want to live in a housing development that was built on the sight of a chemical dump? Love Canal

Do you want to live in a town like Woburn Massachusetts where a company poisoned the wells by illegal dumping?

When I was a kid in the early 70's we were told not to swim in the Mississippi because you would get a rash.

Just like the St. Louis river up by Duluth, there were pollutants and raw sewage being dumped directly into the waterways.

Do you think rich f––ckers that own large corporations care if you and your family get sick?

If the EPA was gone you would see even more health issues than we do now.

rant off.

I agree but certainly, there may be a little fat to trim like anything else but I do agree with you which may enrage my libertarian counterparts. A certain degree of environmental protection is needed.

Posted: 8/18/2011 1:42:23 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
40 years ago, OP went to church. He went in late, sat in the back close to the door with his arms crossed and a scowl on his face. After the closing prayer, he waked to the drinking fountain, took a sip of water, scowled around the lobby, then exited the church. As he sat in his car he mumbled, "Damn Christians, no one even so much as said hi to me!"

And he's been bashing believers on Arfcom ever since.

Posted: 8/18/2011 1:47:38 PM EDT

[#4]

I could do it easily:

Peg the value of $1 to 1/2 gallon of 87 octane gasoline with no EPA or state mandated additives.

If the value of a dollar can be pegged to some amount of gold, then the same thing could be done with gasoline.

Also the federal government could:

1. identify 5 sites in every state and pre-arrange permits for new refinery complexes
2. open up all areas other than National Parks to drilling
3. eliminate many formulation mandates
4. remove exhaust emission restrictions on automobile diesel engines (will decrease gasoline demand)
5. build nuclear power generation facilities in NE US (encourage electric heat, decrease fuel oil use)
6. eliminate certain coal emission restrictions (some diminishment of demand for petroleum)

many other similar things could get us closer

Posted: 8/18/2011 1:49:33 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
40 years ago, OP went to church. He went in late, sat in the back close to the door with his arms crossed and a scowl on his face. After the closing prayer, he waked to the drinking fountain, took a sip of water, scowled around the lobby, then exited the church. As he sat in his car he mumbled, "Damn Christians, no one even so much as said hi to me!"

And he's been bashing believers on Arfcom ever since.

Posted: 8/18/2011 2:06:21 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
De-funding the EPA is not only a bad idea, but it is a colossally bad idea.

Many of you are too young to remember:

Do you really want companies like 3M to dump toxins into our rivers? Do the people down stream from industrial plants deserve to get cancer, birth defects, and leukemia?

Do you want to live in a housing development that was built on the sight of a chemical dump? Love Canal

Do you want to live in a town like Woburn Massachusetts where a company poisoned the wells by illegal dumping?

When I was a kid in the early 70's we were told not to swim in the Mississippi because you would get a rash.

Just like the St. Louis river up by Duluth, there were pollutants and raw sewage being dumped directly into the waterways.

Do you think rich f––ckers that own large corporations care if you and your family get sick?

If the EPA was gone you would see even more health issues than we do now.

rant off.

I am all for not only defunding the EPA, but eliminating it outright. The EPA goes way too far and is a way to regulate many aspects of our lives. Where there are legitimate isses, like public dumping or other directly harmful and egregious acts, it is something the individual States are perfectly capable of taking care of if they so choose. All the little regulations and the like should just be gone at any elvel of government. I do not want the government regulating most aspects of my life. That is the opposite of having a free country and small government. Actions that cause direct harm to others and the public have been something that laws have always addressed to some degree in every free polity.

Not so much until the EPA was created in 1970. (thank you Richard Nixon)

I'd like to consider myself a Libertarian also, but it is a historic FACT that many companies and individuals cannot be trusted to self regulate when it comes to properly disposing of toxic waste in this country.

How many people want trichloroethylene or PCB's in their morning coffee? Any takers?

Or how about a little mercury in your favorite fish hole?

Or how about benzine and other chemicals coming out of your well?

It's kind of a no-brainer; don't shit where you eat. But greedy people don't care about you.

Posted: 8/18/2011 2:08:33 PM EDT

[#7]

She'd have to reduce the cost of drilling to make it worth drilling oil cheap enough to equal $2.00 as the pump PLUS increase our refinement facilities while making those more profitable to operate at the same time.

That would be a SERIOUS accomplishment. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would be difficult.

Posted: 8/18/2011 2:20:40 PM EDT

[#8]

Several things could help - building more refineries could really open things up. Right now it is pretty much a monopoly as new refineries just don't happen anymore.

––––

not realizing it, Berry did one thing that will help us down the road. The ban on offshore exploration moved capital into S. Texas. It is funding the Eagleford Play. I pray that the infrastructure get in place before that capital source dries up.

Look at it this way. We are drilling for $75/barrel oil right now. When the gulf is re-opened, we will be drilling for $35/barrel oil. I really want as many of the $75/barrel wells drilled as possible while the price is high enough to support that drilling.

Oh, and just for grins - Oil at $100/barrel is still under $2 a gallon - rest is transportation, refining, and markup.

Posted: 8/18/2011 2:26:52 PM EDT

[#9]

Not going to happen since the dollar will be replace before the elections..

It's all part of the liberal agenda.

Posted: 8/18/2011 2:29:32 PM EDT

[#10]

Bachmann will never even win the nomination.

And if she gets the nomination it will galvanize the left and she will be soundly trounced.

We need someone with leadership ability, we need Teddy Roosevelt or Chesty Puller.

Posted: 8/18/2011 2:30:20 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ron Paul for President

go away

PaulBots are a dime a dozen.

The gates of the asylum are open again.

Posted: 8/18/2011 2:33:29 PM EDT

[#12]

I for one have no problem with Bachman and would happily vote for her in the general election. She's been about the only one with a pair who has challenged Obama during the course of his presidency while most of the Republicans in Congress were busy cowering in the corner afraid of challenging the magic negro.

Posted: 8/18/2011 2:38:07 PM EDT

[#13]

Posted: 8/18/2011 2:38:34 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Drilling domestically could get it started that way.

It will still all be sold on the same global market. How much do you need to pump out here to make it drop all over the globe?

Posted: 8/18/2011 2:43:59 PM EDT

[#15]

Remove federal regulations and eliminate all federal taxes while working with States to eliminate their gas taxes...it could be done in theory.

Her fiscal policies could strengthen the dollar enough as well.

It's possible to get back to $2 a gallon gas.

Posted: 8/18/2011 3:33:20 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
How?

Frankly, I want the government completely unconcerned with the price of gas. It's high? Free market. It's low? Free market.

Dear politicians - ge the fuck out of the market.

I'm not going to lie and say I was planning to vote for Bachmann, but if I were I'd be rethinking it now.

Exactly. I don't think she is as free market or as conservative as many people seem to think she is.

What's she going to do, subsidize gas so prices go down? Institute price controuls? This is the sort of talk I expect to hear coming out of a borderline socialist country.

so you don't think she might let the market drive down prices via deregulation? You assume that she will use marxist tactics?

If that's her plan it would be stupid to make the pronouncement she made since a free market cannot be controulled or directed and could go either way. Promising a set price on gas presumes action to get to such a precise point. If her goal was to bring back free markets (something I doubt Congress would go for even with Republican majorities), she could have and should have just said that. That she didn't opens her up to this sort of criticism.

It's like something Chavez would say.

funny from a populist liberal type. would you prefer obama to bachman?

Well, Bachmann is clearly a populist. How conservative she is in actuality is doubtful, IMO.

And asking your question is like asking whether I'd rather shoot myself in the foot or in the face. Personally, I'd rather not shoot myself at all!

Oh he's just trying to get back at me because I thought it was classless when he watched an old woman struggle with her luggage at the airport, mocked her and bragged about it on the internet. He's just an arfcommer, go easy.

you sure lie like a liberal. There was no mocking or bragging. You got very emotional about it.

Posted: 8/18/2011 3:36:09 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
She should eat another corn dog.

The price Americans pay at the pump is tied to the crude oil market –– a global system largely beyond the reach of Washington.

Yes...kinda.

If we ever start drilling again, the price WILL go down.

Who knows, maybe she has a plan to reduce the federal taxes at the pump as well?

Posted: 8/18/2011 5:10:08 PM EDT

[#18]

I think what most people have a huge problem with is they don't think we will have $2 gas ever again.
We will have $2 gas again before 2020. Provided we don't get 8 years of Obama.

Posted: 8/18/2011 5:13:09 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
I think what most people have a huge problem with is they don't think we will have $2 gas ever again.

We will have $2 gas again before 2020. Provided we don't get 8 years of Obama.

Maybe $2 adjusted backwards for inflation...

Posted: 8/18/2011 5:16:57 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I think what most people have a huge problem with is they don't think we will have $2 gas ever again.
We will have $2 gas again before 2020. Provided we don't get 8 years of Obama.

Maybe $2 adjusted backwards for inflation...

Nope. You will hand over 2 $1 bills for each gallon sometime before 2020. In at least one of the low priced states. OK, TX, MO etc.... and at least if Obama doesn't get a 2nd term.

I'll put $500 on it with a bronze team member or above , that stays a team member until the bet is finished.

Posted: 8/18/2011 5:19:57 PM EDT

[#21]

I think she is 100 percent right.

1. Truly poor memories of many of the posters here. Gas was $1.44/gal on George Bush's last day in office in January 2009.
2. With a strong enough dollar, $2 gas is easy. Even $1 gas is possible. We get a strong dollar when we spend less, and borrow less.

Posted: 8/18/2011 5:24:34 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Anyone know what happened to gas prices during the tenure of GWB––and why?

How about what happened to gas prices during the second worst president ever, jimmy carter?

Posted: 8/18/2011 5:25:48 PM EDT

[#23]

Elect me, everyone will be a millionaire.

The dollar won't be worth 2 shits, but you'll have a million of them, I guarantee.

Posted: 8/18/2011 5:29:38 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I think she's just the woman who could do it; bring back $2/gal. gasoline.
In fact, I think I might be able to do it.
All she has to do is to sink the economy into a deep enough depression and I think we'll see $2gal. gas, no problem.

Well, just ONE problem. No one will be able to afford $2/gal. gas because everyone will be outta work.

And we have what now?

Posted: 8/18/2011 5:52:36 PM EDT

[#25]

We have the oil.

Do we have the will to get it?

Not when this county is run by women,

Balls.....we need them.

GM

Posted: 8/18/2011 5:55:28 PM EDT

[#26]

There has been expansion of existing refinerys to meet demand.

Posted: 8/18/2011 6:02:24 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I think she is 100 percent right.

1. Truly poor memories of many of the posters here. Gas was $1.44/gal on George Bush's last day in office in January 2009.
2. With a strong enough dollar, $2 gas is easy. Even $1 gas is possible. We get a strong dollar when we spend less, and borrow less.

Probably less likely now. Demand-growth for petrol from certain key countries has been highly curvilinear, along with their securing of drilling & mining rights in key global geographic locations. Meanwhile, the US self-flagellates & embraces the 3rd-world take on lifestyle. They're going for it while we back/bow down. Some of those lost opportunities are permanent/unrecoverable.

Posted: 8/18/2011 6:20:03 PM EDT

[#28]

So much fail in here.

So many people can't even imagine freedom unfettered by the nanny state.

Posted: 8/18/2011 6:26:18 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

De-funding the EPA is not only a bad idea, but it is a colossally bad idea.

Many of you are too young to remember:

Do you really want companies like 3M to dump toxins into our rivers? Do the people down stream from industrial plants deserve to get cancer, birth defects, and leukemia?

Do you want to live in a housing development that was built on the sight of a chemical dump? Love Canal

Do you want to live in a town like Woburn Massachusetts where a company poisoned the wells by illegal dumping?

When I was a kid in the early 70's we were told not to swim in the Mississippi because you would get a rash.

Just like the St. Louis river up by Duluth, there were pollutants and raw sewage being dumped directly into the waterways.

Do you think rich f––ckers that own large corporations care if you and your family get sick?

If the EPA was gone you would see even more health issues than we do now.

rant off.

I am all for not only defunding the EPA, but eliminating it outright. The EPA goes way too far and is a way to regulate many aspects of our lives. Where there are legitimate isses, like public dumping or other directly harmful and egregious acts, it is something the individual States are perfectly capable of taking care of if they so choose. All the little regulations and the like should just be gone at any elvel of government. I do not want the government regulating most aspects of my life. That is the opposite of having a free country and small government. Actions that cause direct harm to others and the public have been something that laws have always addressed to some degree in every free polity.

So you want 50 state EPAs, all with the ability to create different rules? What a nightmare. Also, couldn't New Hampshire build coal fired plants with minimal/no anti-pollution measures on the Maine Border, because the prevailing winds will take the crap to Maine? Could Missouri allow toxic waste to be dumped into the Mississippi as long as it was in the southern corner of the state? Car manufacturers would have to either build cars to different state standards, or give in and build them all to the most restrictive standards.

Posted: 8/18/2011 6:32:58 PM EDT

[#30]

W0W, this thread really weeded 0ut the DU tr0lls ........

Posted: 8/18/2011 6:34:16 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
W0W, this thread really weeded 0ut the DU tr0lls ........

It also seems to weed out the no-brain idiotic sheep. If you have an intelligent argument/comment, fine. But your go-to response always seems to be "DU TROLL!!!"

Posted: 8/18/2011 6:35:18 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Anyone know what happened to gas prices during the tenure of GWB––and why?

The inflation adjusted line is the most interesting. I hope no one notices the price of gas during the Clinton Administration or the GW Bust Administrations.

BTW, the huge drop in the price of oil in October and November 2008 was not caused by election results (snicker), but by the collapse of the credit markets and the dramatic decline in international oil demand.

The only way we will see $2.00/gallon gas in the next five years will be because of serious deflation, a serious global recession impacting non-US demand, or it OPEC members start cheating on their quotas. Possible, but unlikely.

Bachman is an idiot. If the president could control the price of gas, why was gas cheaper during the Clinton presidency than the GW Bush presidency?

Posted: 8/18/2011 6:39:52 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Anyone know what happened to gas prices during the tenure of GWB––and why?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3235/3045823858_0333573667.jpg
The inflation adjusted line is the most interesting. I hope no one notices the price of gas during the Clinton Administration or the GW Bust Administrations.

BTW, the huge drop in the price of oil in October and November 2008 was not caused by election results (snicker), but by the collapse of the credit markets and the dramatic decline in international oil demand.

The only way we will see $2.00/gallon gas in the next five years will be because of serious deflation, a serious global recession impacting non-US demand, or it OPEC members start cheating on their quotas. Possible, but unlikely.

Bachman is an idiot. If the president could control the price of gas, why was gas cheaper during the Clinton presidency than the GW Bush presidency?

Because Bush deflated the dollar on purpose to 'keep jobs in the US'.

Posted: 8/18/2011 6:41:22 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Bachmann will never even win the nomination.

And if she gets the nomination it will galvanize the left and she will be soundly trounced.

We need someone with leadership ability, we need Teddy Roosevelt or Chesty Puller.

Teddy Roosevelt was our first progressive President.

Posted: 8/18/2011 6:45:30 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Drilling domestically could get it started that way.

Absolutely. Open up drilling, Build a few refineries. Price will drop.

I'd also like to ask the liberals, "What happened to that 'blood for oil?'" Didn't seem to pan out.

Posted: 8/18/2011 6:50:46 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

40 years ago, OP went to church. He went in late, sat in the back close to the door with his arms crossed and a scowl on his face. After the closing prayer, he waked to the drinking fountain, took a sip of water, scowled around the lobby, then exited the church. As he sat in his car he mumbled, "Damn Christians, no one even so much as said hi to me!"

And he's been bashing believers on Arfcom ever since.

While I have certainly called OldGuy out on his bigoted (and IMHO)protected behavior in the past, I fail to see how your criticism applies in this thread.

Just exactly where was he doing his old Christian bashing shenanigans here? I must have missed it.

Posted: 8/18/2011 6:51:12 PM EDT

[#37]

Makes me laugh every time I hear an old coger or anyone say "somebodys GOT to do something about the price of fuel, the government needs to fix that , its going to break everybody". I automatically assume I am having a conversation with someone that does not understand a damn thing about how this country or the world for that matter works.

Yep, just dial up the king and have him dictate the price of fuel.

herp de frickin derp.

Posted: 8/18/2011 6:52:33 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

W0W, this thread really weeded 0ut the DU tr0lls ........

It also seems to weed out the no-brain idiotic sheep. If you have an intelligent argument/comment, fine. But your go-to response always seems to be "DU TROLL!!!"

Just the fact that anyone could be so dumb as to foment criticism of a frankly legit statement certainly leaves me no incentive to do anything but mock the naysayers. But then again it's fun to tease the monkeys now and then, so therefore here we go ......

(1) gas was under $2 when Obama took office. Then his anti-energy policies began to take hold ..........

(2) per #1 above, the current $4 a gallon gas today is 100% a function of government policy, not market forces.

(3) per #2 above, it would only take a reversal of anti-energy policies to return gas prices to more realistic levels aka $2 a gallon gas.

Posted: 8/18/2011 7:00:12 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
De-funding the EPA is not only a bad idea, but it is a colossally bad idea.

Many of you are too young to remember:

Do you really want companies like 3M to dump toxins into our rivers? Do the people down stream from industrial plants deserve to get cancer, birth defects, and leukemia?

Do you want to live in a housing development that was built on the sight of a chemical dump? Love Canal

Do you want to live in a town like Woburn Massachusetts where a company poisoned the wells by illegal dumping?

When I was a kid in the early 70's we were told not to swim in the Mississippi because you would get a rash.

Just like the St. Louis river up by Duluth, there were pollutants and raw sewage being dumped directly into the waterways.

Do you think rich f––ckers that own large corporations care if you and your family get sick?

If the EPA was gone you would see even more health issues than we do now.

rant off.

I agree but certainly, there may be a little fat to trim like anything else but I do agree with you which may enrage my libertarian counterparts. A certain degree of environmental protection is needed.

I don't think we should defund them, just trim them down a bit and realize that to compete in the world we have to use some sense and balance. NOT the treehugging job killing unrealistic crap they are pushing at this point in time.

NOW that being said , maybe we should hold all importers to our epa standards of production or dis allow the importation of their products, that might be something I would consider.
However, walmarts shelves would be mostly empty and everthing you buy would cost 5 times as much. Welcome to the world economy, if your production cost are higher than your competition you decline and go out of business. This fact goes for countries too, not just businesses.

Posted: 8/18/2011 7:01:36 PM EDT

[#40]

Bachmann is going to reduce global demand while reducing supply worries?

...

How?

Posted: 8/18/2011 7:05:00 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She sounds a little too much like Pedro in Napoleon Dynamite on this issue.

Vote for me... and your wildest dreams will come true.

Free porn for life even?

Posted: 8/18/2011 7:10:49 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Just the fact that anyone could be so dumb as to foment criticism of a frankly legit statement certainly leaves me no incentive to do anything but mock the naysayers. But then again it's fun to tease the monkeys now and then, so therefore here we go ......

(1) gas was under $2 when Obama took office. Then his anti-energy policies began to take hold ..........

(2) per #1 above, the current $4 a gallon gas today is 100% a function of government policy, not market forces.

(3) per #2 above, it would only take a reversal of anti-energy policies to return gas prices to more realistic levels aka $2 a gallon gas.

What a simple way of thinking... You do realize we produce ~7.5M barrels a day, while international production is 87M barrels/day? (that's about 8%)

Ok. Say we reverse Obama's policies and open up a bunch of new drilling platforms and tap Alaska dry. I'll even pretend that these wells will be magically drilled and producing oil within a month. So all of a sudden, we've now achieved ... 10% of the world petroleum output? 12%? 14%?

Even if we somehow manage to crank up our production to match 14% of the world's gross output, do you expect that to have a significant effect on global oil supply and demand?

Answer is NO. No matter how much we crank up production, our sum production is inconsequential compared to OPEC states / Russia.

So unless you both plan on cranking up production of US crude by 100% to 15M barrels/day (to satisfy daily domestic consumption), and further legislate that US oil is for US only and no export, and then further legislate the cap trading price of US Crude for consumption (to about $40/barrel) while the rest of the world is selling for $90+, then you can forget it.

You know what's really cranking up gas prices? Right after Obama took office, there was a slight economic recovery and the demand for gas rose, ergo prices rose. This was followed by a global financial market slowdown and a plumeting dollar, which meant commodities such as oil rose. This was further followed by Arab spring, which disrupted oil production.

But whatever, I don't expect you to be able to grasp the complexities of global economics and trade when it's so easy to blame the government for everything that's wrong.

Posted: 8/18/2011 7:51:54 PM EDT

[#43]

She is really beginning to get on my nerves.

Posted: 8/19/2011 12:15:04 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
De-funding the EPA is not only a bad idea, but it is a colossally bad idea.

Many of you are too young to remember:

Do you really want companies like 3M to dump toxins into our rivers? Do the people down stream from industrial plants deserve to get cancer, birth defects, and leukemia?

Do you want to live in a housing development that was built on the sight of a chemical dump? Love Canal

Do you want to live in a town like Woburn Massachusetts where a company poisoned the wells by illegal dumping?

When I was a kid in the early 70's we were told not to swim in the Mississippi because you would get a rash.

Just like the St. Louis river up by Duluth, there were pollutants and raw sewage being dumped directly into the waterways.

Do you think rich f––ckers that own large corporations care if you and your family get sick?

If the EPA was gone you would see even more health issues than we do now.

rant off.

I agree but certainly, there may be a little fat to trim like anything else but I do agree with you which may enrage my libertarian counterparts. A certain degree of environmental protection is needed.

I don't think we should defund them, just trim them down a bit and realize that to compete in the world we have to use some sense and balance. NOT the treehugging job killing unrealistic crap they are pushing at this point in time.

NOW that being said , maybe we should hold all importers to our epa standards of production or dis allow the importation of their products, that might be something I would consider.
However, walmarts shelves would be mostly empty and everthing you buy would cost 5 times as much. Welcome to the world economy, if your production cost are higher than your competition you decline and go out of business. This fact goes for countries too, not just businesses.

Cutting bureaucracies down to "reasonable" size has been brought up-nauseum, but it never goes anywhere. It's always the same old problem: special interests. The pendulum invariably swings too far in the direction of bureaucratic activism, but, given their financial resources & how entrenched they are, they tend to remain unfettered.

The "big plan" to simplify the tax code & cut the size of the IRS gets dragged out of the closet & tossed around all the time, only to get locked back up again until the next go-around.

Posted: 8/19/2011 12:23:05 AM EDT

[#45]

Saying it is one thing....................having a plan on how to do it is another.

Isn't that the problem we've had with politicians for years? They state the goal without having a plan on how to do it? Or they confuse goal with plan?

Not falling for it.........of course, the other things she has said rather makes her one not to vote for, anyhow.
___________________________________________________________
("If elected, I shall put a car in every sink!"––Bullwinkle, (w,stte), "Rocky and Bullwinkle")

Posted: 8/19/2011 4:59:02 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Bachmann is going to reduce global demand while reducing supply worries?

...

How?

Hubby will pray the high prices away.

Posted: 8/19/2011 5:01:59 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
1. Truly poor memories of many of the posters here. Gas was $1.44/gal on George Bush's last day in office in January 2009.

Maybe where you live, not here it wasn't.

Posted: 8/19/2011 5:18:52 AM EDT

[#48]

It could easily be done if we:

open drilling.
stop subsidies
stop entitlements, (this would greatly reduce the demand)
increase refinery capacity
get rid of Obama and let the market sort things out

Posted: 8/19/2011 5:22:35 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just the fact that anyone could be so dumb as to foment criticism of a frankly legit statement certainly leaves me no incentive to do anything but mock the naysayers. But then again it's fun to tease the monkeys now and then, so therefore here we go ......

(1) gas was under $2 when Obama took office. Then his anti-energy policies began to take hold ..........

(2) per #1 above, the current $4 a gallon gas today is 100% a function of government policy, not market forces.

(3) per #2 above, it would only take a reversal of anti-energy policies to return gas prices to more realistic levels aka $2 a gallon gas.

What a simple way of thinking... You do realize we produce ~7.5M barrels a day, while international production is 87M barrels/day? (that's about 8%)

Ok. Say we reverse Obama's policies and open up a bunch of new drilling platforms and tap Alaska dry. I'll even pretend that these wells will be magically drilled and producing oil within a month. So all of a sudden, we've now achieved ... 10% of the world petroleum output? 12%? 14%?

Even if we somehow manage to crank up our production to match 14% of the world's gross output, do you expect that to have a significant effect on global oil supply and demand?

Answer is NO. No matter how much we crank up production, our sum production is inconsequential compared to OPEC states / Russia.

So unless you both plan on cranking up production of US crude by 100% to 15M barrels/day (to satisfy daily domestic consumption), and further legislate that US oil is for US only and no export, and then further legislate the cap trading price of US Crude for consumption (to about $40/barrel) while the rest of the world is selling for $90+, then you can forget it.

You know what's really cranking up gas prices? Right after Obama took office, there was a slight economic recovery and the demand for gas rose, ergo prices rose. This was followed by a global financial market slowdown and a plumeting dollar, which meant commodities such as oil rose. This was further followed by Arab spring, which disrupted oil production.

But whatever, I don't expect you to be able to grasp the complexities of global economics and trade when it's so easy to blame the government for everything that's wrong.

You do realize we're in a global recession, right?

FYI - there has been no "economic recovery" under Obama, ergo there has been NO in increase in demand for gas. Check the EIA stats.

Seriously, to allege a doubling of gas prices due to the faux recovery of Obama is pure insanity.

The "Arab Spring" did not affect oil supplies one whit. The increasing price effects are ONLY related to futures markets and speculators, as traders predict further .gov restraints on supply. Get someone in .gov who'll get rid of the perception of supply disruption/restraint, and oil pices will fall along with gasoline prices. Further price drops will occur once the EPA is reigned in and it's stupid formula regulations are ditched.

Again, ALL the increase in gasoline prices originates at the .gov level, not due to market forces as you ignorantly allege.

You're living in a fantasy land per your statement in red.

Posted: 8/19/2011 5:26:19 AM EDT

[#50]

Gas was 2.50 a gallon a year ago so I don't find that too hard to believe.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bachmann: "I'll bring back $2 gas" (Page 4 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us