Ha! McCain thinks drilling for oil on U.S. soil or off the coast will lower the $ big oil charges consumers?

In a popular TV campaign ad, presidential hopeful John McCain says it’s time to start drilling more for oil here in the U.S. and off our waterways. What good will this do Americans when 1) there’s absolutely no guarantee what price big oil will sell this oil and refined gas to Americans, 2) there’s absolutely no telling how much would be exported to maximize profits, 3) it would create further incentive to exploit fossil fuels instead of develop cleaner technology and sustainable sources, 4) it would encourage more consumption and indirectly support global warming, 5) it ultimately puts most of the money into the hands of big oil while consumers might benefit marginally only through increased supply? Just like Bush, looks like this guy is all about $$$ for the oil industry.
Alternate Q: Why do Bush/McCain supporters think "supply and demand" is the answer for anything OIL?
To say "supply and demand" is to grossly oversimplify the issue, but I would expect this from McCain supporters.
Looks to me like a lot of Americans have been fooled into believing we don’t already drill for oil in the U.S., and that’s because they support another liar.
Come on. 12 answers and no decent argument in favor of what McBush supports except for "supply and demand"?

12 Responses to “Ha! McCain thinks drilling for oil on U.S. soil or off the coast will lower the $ big oil charges consumers?”

  1. dixie jo Says:

    You are crazy. Absolutely crazy. Ever since Bush lifted the ban, oil prices have dropped 11%. My gas went from 3.99 to 3.74. Where have you been? It’s called SUPPLY and DEMAND. McCain wants to drill AND find alternate sources. Obama just wants to find alternate sources. There’s no telling how long it will take us to be completely independent of oil, so while we’re waiting… we mind as well drill and stop importing our oil from Saudi Arabia and borrowing money from China to do it. Obama wants to continue borrowing money from China and just wait around until alternate sources are available. Oh and did I mention a windfall profits tax? That worked real well when Carter did it, right? Can you say GAS LINES?

    EDIT: You ask "Why do McCain supporters think supply and demand is the answer?" Because it IS the answer. Take a basic economics class before you ask questions like this. We won’t need to import our oil from halfway around the world anymore. Do you know how expensive that is? The oil will be RIGHT HERE. Not to mention it will increase jobs. The supply will go up because we will have our own oil. When supply goes up, guess what? Demand goes down. And when demand goes down, so do prices.

  2. LIBS WHINE TOO MUCH Says:

    Ha!….and Obamas plan would be….

  3. kwazywabbott Says:

    It only puts off the inevitable: One day the oil will be gone.

  4. jero Says:

    Yes, do you think the oil companies will give us the oil cheaper, while they can sell it for more money abroad? That’s Mc Lame

  5. pablo_asawa Says:

    Oil is the lifeblood of the world and this so called

    speculation is gong to reap big dividends in the near

    future..but to be safe then sorry..why let the foreign

    countries hold us for hostange? it is worth the gamble

    as sooner or latter this is going to happen

  6. chris h Says:

    bush is doing a great job.
    listen when the price of oil goes up, the price of everything goes up, once we have our own oil, we wont need to buy it from the saudearabians, if we build new oil refieries, the price of gas goes down.

  7. William N Says:

    If you owned the only barbershop in town, wouldn’t it be safe to say that you could charge any price that you want?

    But, as soon as one person opens a shop near you, your customers now have a choice. And most likely, in order to get your customers, this new competitor will cut hair for LESS than what you’re charging.

    And for every new barber, the competition goes UP, and the price will go down.

    The same is true will any commodity or service. When companies have to compete to earn a customers dollar, the battle field is usually 1) service or 2) price!

    If the United States competed with other oil suppliers, they would have to lower they prices in order to keep their current customer base (i.e. me and you!)

    As far as guarantee, is wind power guaranteed to function at the same productivity level as fossil fuels? Do the wind farmers ‘guarantee’ that they won’t start raising their prices to match those of … ‘Big Oil’?

    Of course not!

    The best chance we have to lower prices is to let the market decide who to buy from. If you like getting you hair cut by the first barber in town, go ahead and pay him what he’s asking for. But, if you’d like to save a few dollars for the same service, try one of the new competitors.

    And to save the most money … have your wife cut your hair, like I do!! :-)

  8. Time to Shrug, Atlas Says:

    1) Oil is a commodity.

    "Big Oil" controls about 5% of world petroleum production, so I think it is a stretch to assume that they control the price.

    2) It doesn’t matter. Nobody expects the companies to sell only to US citizens. The increase in supply will not be too signicant either. However, the aspect you have over looked is the royalties that would be paid to the appropriate states. The rest of the world is getting paid by record oil prices. Why should our states not also benefit? Particularly when it seems like China is more than willing to drill for our oil from Cuba.

    3) True. But increasing supply should be part of a larger solution. Focusing only on alternative energy is like putting all of our eggs in an unproven basket.

    4) Global warming is pseudo-science. "The debate is over" is one of the most UN-scientific statements ever made.

    5) Actually, states receive more in royalties from the production, while taking none of the exploration and production risks. And if you are one of the types who believe that government actually helps people, then more money in their hands should be a plus, right?

    AlternateA: Because most economists would agree.

    But hey, I am sure that Nancy Pelosi is just as knowledgeable as them, and she probably isn’t even driven by an agenda…LOL>

  9. furgetabowdit Says:

    McLame don’t know wear his depends are ?

    It’s 2008 how much longer are we going to be dependent on fossil fuels?

    Wake up American ?

  10. William S Says:

    And Obama is tickled with these high gas prices, McCain is at least attempting to find an answer, Obama thinks prices should be higher. Every president for the last 25 years has been for more offshore drilling and had we started drilling more 25 years ago we would be using it now. McCain is for more nuclear power plants and Obama is against them…Obama’s answer is higher gas prices, turn your air conditioner off, and stop driving your SUV, now I’m sure that’s something we can live with. If everyone would do their part we could reduce the amount of foreign oil we use but you still see 9 out of 10 cars on the highway with one person in them and you still see people driving 80 mph on the highway if we would all simply replace one filament light bulb in our homes with a high energy/high efficiency bulb we would reduce oil usage by millions of barrels a year. I have replaced every bulb in my house and I drive a bifuel car that uses cng(compressed natural gas) and gasoline…my cng costs 90 cents a gallon and as long as I have cng in it it will not switch over to gasoline. Our problems with energy will not be solved overnight and they can’t be fixed by politicians alone.

  11. kathy_is_a_nurse Says:

    You seem to be worried about our assumptions, when you are making a whole bunch of assumptions yourself. What makes YOU think your assumptions are any more valid than ours… especially since many of your assumptions are anti-capitalist? There is PLENTY of incentive to develop alternative fuel sources… it’s called money. Why must YOU assume that ensuring we have a sustainable source of fossil fuels is antithetical to the development of alternative fuel sources? We will never in the foreseeable future NOT need oil and we have no way of knowing what the future holds for our current oil sources… even if a wonderful new source of alternative fuel was discovered TOMORROW. So to ignore oil sources on our own soil is… quite frankly STUPID. McCain may be many things, but he isn’t stupid.

  12. Nicolas Says:

    You are right. Let’s stop using oil and go back to riding bikes and donkeys.