jdanton

A little while ago I heard Obama say that the candidates can't do anything about gas prices.

That was refreshingly honest.

I have to wonder, however, what the president, whomever it is, can do about gas prices.

We all know that the oil companies are making record profits and getting subisidies.

If the government takes the subsidies, prices will go up at the pump, no?

If new areas are opened for drilling, won't the cost of the drilling be paid at the pump?


Can the government tell private industries what they can charge?

When is someone going to suggest that we could cut down on demand considerably if we didn't use drive thru windows?

__________________
Author: Memoirs of a Sleepless Mind, a book you CAN judge by its cover.

mudwhistle

So B Hussein thinks that the President should do something about irresponsible home buyers, but can't do anything about gas prices. What a crock.

We need to open ANWR for drilling. Increasing the domestic supply would bring the price down.

We also need to open up the New England coast for more wind farms so that those limosine liberals power their homes from wind instead of oil, coal, and gas.

Chantytown

Jesus fucking christ.

You guys are becoming parodies of yourselves.

syriana

This man is far too young in life and work years to have much of an opinion about anything. Hopefully people will wise up before we get someone dumber than Jimmy Carter in there.

aloysious

Are you aware that McCain has always been against opening ANWR for oil exploration? Well, you are now. Which is one reason I will only vote for him in the event Hillary is the nominee.
Not to mention what it'd do for the scenery.

__________________
self banned

bornright

It is strange how the ones that want to block any drilling in Alaska or off the coast are the ones that scream the loudest about the price of gas.

winthrop

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Geological Survey places the supply from ANWR to be enough for about seven months, hardly a long term solution. Ultimately we must find alternatives to oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear and other dangerous or finite energy resources. The sooner we attack this problem seriously, instead of seeking environmentally disastrous or international peace threatening quick fixes, the better.

DRS112

So....by your logic I assume you are a McCain supporter...

aloysious

Strange, indeed. You also forgot that oil production is favorable for employment and nat'l debt, two other topics that liberals and conservatives alike bitch about. Is it short term? Of course.
Anyways, drilling in the ANWR is a dead topic for the next 8 foreseeable years since all dems are against it and so is McCain.
Too bad, I'd love to debate this topic.
Drilling at Prudhoe Bay and the Alyeska Pipeline haven't done a thing to hurt wildlife in Alaska, although there were similar arguements against these before they became a reality. Especially the Pipeline.
BTW, Winnie, nice cherry picking from your link. 7 years. You forgot to include that would be 7 years worth of reserves. You also conveniently forgot to include that in your decidely biased article the estimated lifespan of the field would be 50 years.
Nevermind, though. Like I mentioned, this is a dead topic for the next 8 foreseeable years.

__________________
self banned

winthrop

The estimate is seven months, not years.
As for "cherry picking", "Allie", I would post the entire article for those too lazy to click the link, but it includes an admonition not to reproduce the article without permission. Anyone wishing to read it for themselves, and decide for themselves who has "cherry picked" and who has not read or comprehended enough to tell the difference between years and months, can click the link and do so.
As for its "bias", feel free to post Exxon's opinions and then we will be "fair and balanced".