In regards to my gas price question. Why are democrats blocking attempts to increase our oil?

bw said it best "Democrats have repeatedly blocked such attempts to increase our domestic oil exploration and drilling as well as increased regulation and taxation on fuel." and "Democrats have also blocked the construction of new refineries that turn crude oil into gasoline and other fuels. The US has not built a new refinery in 30 years. If we can’t find and drill for our own oil and we can’t refine it into usable fuels, it’s amazing that gasoline isn’t a gallon!"
Why is this?
Does the government enjoy seeing us squirm??

5 Responses to “In regards to my gas price question. Why are democrats blocking attempts to increase our oil?”

  1. cheat9273 Says:

    Drilling for more oil isn’t going to make our prices any cheaper and isn’t going to wean us off of foreign oil. The real problem is finding alternative energy sources and since GW has stock in the oil companys, don’t expect anything to change anytime soon. Would you change anything if you recieved a 200%+ return on your investment?

  2. Neodiogenes Says:

    Everything is a trade-off. Democrats block the oil companies from ravaging some of the last oil reserves on this side of the world, not to mention destroying some of the last natural habitats we have left.

    Not to mention that even if we developed all the domestic oil available it would have little or no effect on the bottom line price of oil — that’s all been fueled by speculators taking advantage of the instability in the Middle East. Which, by the way, was on the decline under Clinton.

    Gee, wonder why Bush would want to drive oil prices higher?

    Blame the Republicans for blocking every piece of legislation designed to promote efficient fuel standards and development of alternative energy sources. Bush might talk now about fuel from corn, but he’s full of it. Democrats are the only ones who have consistently supported such things for decades.

  3. hsueh001 Says:

    Well do you enjoy going to the beach? Would you enjoy going to the beach if there was a big off shore platform that was visible to you right there?

    What about Alaska and Canada and other creatures and living things on this earth?

    You’re probably one of those people that believes that the earth should be just one big paved surface and kill all other creatures of the world because man should get what he wants at any cost.

  4. bw Says:

    Democrats have maneuvered themselves into a precarious position. Instead of being a people of similar mind, they are made of of many small, single-issue groups, many of which could be considered to be quite extremest, that they need to cater to. The environmentalists are one of these groups. Nobody wants to have dirty water, air, etc, but the environmental movement has become more anti-capitalistic than it is worried about real science or legitimate problems. Couple the need to keep these types of groups happy with the perceived need to oppose anything that President Bush supports and you have a recipe for disaster. On so many issues, the Democrats have taken a position that if the US loses, they stand to gain (eg. Iraq War). They can’t stomach agreeing with a hick from Texas that has an "R" (Republican) behind his name and so they have to bet the other way and hope he loses (in the process America loses). To make my point about the anti-capitalism stance of the environmental movement, are they more worried about America with its ability to drill for oil without making a mess, to build and afford to buy cleaner, more effecient cars, etc or about many of the dictatorships that don’t care about how the oil gets to market as long as it does, who are willing to create real environmental problems like igniting all of kuwait’s oil wells in 1991 (Saddam), and whose citizens mainly drive cars built in the 1950’s (Castro)? How many times have you heard the environmentalists say we should live more like these third world countries and "not make such a mess of things"? It doesn’t add up. The fact the we have two ex-oil company execs (yes, ex is correct) as Pres. and VP should be comforting, not alarming. We have two guys who are experts in the oil industry. What makes the other elected officials or lobbyists experts? Is fuel a big enough part of this economy that you want experts in charge or are you ok with just an average joe who happens to get elected? Was it a problem when President Clinton, being a lawyer, was involved with passing laws that affected the legal system? Sorry for the extememly long answer. If you think you want more or want to argue, shoot me an e-mail.

  5. chattterus Says:

    We actually don’t need more refineries in the US. The ones we have can produce more oil product than we can consume, assuming a consistent supply of oil.

    There is enough pumpable crude oil in the North America to last the country only a handful of years. So the bits of oil we are arguing over are not very strategic for our needs.

    Oil prices will never go above 4 dollars a gallon. At 3 dollars a gallon we can economically recover oil from oil shales, which the US possesses in great quatity. It is more expensive than normal drillable oil.

    At a little more than 3 dollars we can also economically turn carbon products such as all crops, plastics, animal flesh into crude oil to send to refineries to turn into gasoline. It would take around 6% of US land to grow all of the crops required.

    So this doomsday everyone is predicting isn’t going to happen. When we run out of drillable oil, gas will go up to around 3 to 4 dollars a gallon and stabilize.