Why Won’t The DEM Congress Allow New Drilling For Oil To Lower The Price of US Gas?
The Democrat-led Congress promised that if elected 2 years ago they would lower the price of gas. Since their election the price of gas has doubled! NOW they won’t allow new drilling in the US which would substantially lower the price of gasoline at the pump. Alternative fuel is fine but the vast majority of Americans need to get to work now and the high prices at the pump are killing the average Joe. The Democrats just don’t seem to give a damn!
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Because liberals do not want the problems solved.
Liberals want Americans to suffer economically, its only through suffering can they build their dream welfare state.
Drilling in ANWR alone would not solve the problem, but since liberals also block offshore drilling, the answers to our problems become unattainable.
The fact is, the US needs to produce more oil if it’s going to reduce depency and the US needs to find an alternative in the future, since there is a limit in how much oil we can find.
It is a fact that new nuclear power plants would dramatically reduce our dependency on oil for electricity, but liberals don’t want that either.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
environmentalists
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Because the tree huggers and posie sniffers have the Democrat party wrapped around their little finger.
EDIT: Jeff, your logic is faulty. When the price of gas rises, people tend to buy less of it. The tax on gas is based on gallons bought, not the price per gallon. As people buy less gas, tax revenues decrease.
EDIT: Megara, ANWR isn’t in anyone’s back yard. It’s miles and miles and miles and miles and miles of nothing. I was stationed in Alaska from ‘85-’91, and flew over areas where I knew that there was not a single human being on the ground that I could see.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Because it will have NO effect on gas prices…and do more damage than it is worth.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
no leadership skills.Why take a stand when doing nothing will keep you in office?
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
I think it could be done by dipping into the reserves. We have US oil reserves at 95% according to one senator from SC who was on CNN this morning. They could also cut the excise tax on fuel to lower prices.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
blame the Democrats…… good one.
why didn’t Republicans do something about it when they owned the White House and both houses of Congress from 2000-2006???????????????
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
won’t make a difference, don’t fool with corporate American leaders
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Because HIHGER gs prices are EXACTLY what they want!
Higher gas taxes mean more federal and State revenue. i.e. every $0.10 gas increse is a $30,000,000 increase in revenue fo rthe State of Michigan.
Also, They believe that higher gas costs (The exact reason they argued when they fought FOR the gas taxes) lead to lower use. This meet thier goals for the environment.
Here is aontehr dem goal. a $1,200,000,000,000 tax hike for Carbon emissions!
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9121/s2191_EPW_Amendment.pdf
You want to keep a good standard of living?
Do NOT vote dem!
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Myth 1. Drilling in Alaska will lower gas prices. Fact the oil in Alaska is a higher grade which is more expensive to convert. Savings = 4 cents a gallon not much.
Myth 2. It was congress that siad they would lower gas prices. Fact Bush said the war in Iraq will lower gas prices because of freedom. Instead prices have increased. Fact when Bush was told of gas prices he said I didn’t know it was that expensive. Blame Bush not congress.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Two words: tree huggers.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE NO AFFECT ON GAS PRICES WHATSOEVER…geez people do a little research before you throw up these stupid questions. Raising minimum fuel economy 10% would FAR MORE beneficial.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
The cockroach MUST be PROTECTED!
Thus says the Democrats.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
So your position is that there is NO reason to prevent this drilling, right?
What if it was in your backyard and, in order to do so, the government condemned your property and tossed you and your family out on your butt? They do NOT have to compensate you in order to do this. It’s in your mortgage agreement. I know this because it’s standard language in ALL mortgage agreements. They will pay off your mortgage but you don’t have to receive a penny.
If that happened, would that be a good enough reason to prevent the drilling?
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Ask the democrats what they think about the Chinese drilling with the Cubans right off our shore.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Megara:
Do you even know where ANWR is?
There are no homes to lose, the area is not even settled. Its on a government reserve.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Drilling in ANWAR will not lower our gas prices…there is a little issue of our refineries being out of date and more need to be built. The other issue is all the "clean air" restrictions placed on gas companies to refine out impurities in the crude that promote greenhouse gasses contributing to "Global Warming"… I don’t know about you but, I will take a larger "Carbon Footprint" in order to bring my gas prices down… the bigger the better.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Environmentalist conecerns will not allow them to drill for oil, increase refinery capacity, or build new power generating facilities. The only option left, then is to import it.
There are a number of things that can be done. The problem is that there are political, environmental, and legal issues that would have to be overcome to make it happen.
First, we need to reduce dependence on imported oil. As a world wide commodity, changes in oil demand anywhere in the world will impact our prices here. We could reduce oil imports by increasing the use of ethanol. Currently something like 25% of the US corn crop goes to this. However, the downside is that this takes corn out of the stockpile for food (both human and animal feed), which is currently causing famine to break out around the world. We could expand domestic supply, but hat means drilling for oil off the Gulf coast and in a part of ANWAR, which has environmentalists up in arms.
Second, we could improve the distribution of fuel in the US. Currently, there are dozens of gas blends, all mandated by law. It is a tricky thing to supply just enough of each blend, as you cannot use a blend intended for, say, Colorado, in California. So if California goes in need, oil companies cannot shift inventory, they have to shut down refineries, make adjustments, and make more of the California blend. This is a wasteful and expensive process. Far better to have a single blend that all the states can agree on that would allow the fluidity needed in the market. But this is going to be difficult to impossible as the states want THEIR blend and will fight any kind of Federal mandate.
Third, I think we need to encourage those things which will get us away from oil consumption. Not much oil is used for electricity generation, but it can and should be replaced by more efficient, cleaner sources. But nuclear, coal, solar, wind, and hydroelectric all have their own problems as well and each industry will fight hard for their slice of the pie. Most oil is used for vehicle fuel. We need to move to more efficient vehicles and alternative fuel / hybrids, but they are often more expensive than gasoline powered vehicles and some alternate power sources do not have the power necessary for today’s driving. Research needs to be done in fuel cell technology, advanced batteries, and efficient (and safe) hydrogen generation.
I think too many people focus on one thing (conservation, more oil drilling, whatever) and think that alone will solve our problem. They are wrong. It will take a comprehensive approach were everyone will have to give a little for the greater good. Rep. Kennedy is going to have to sacrifice some of his coastal view in MA for wind turbines. Oil companies are going to be allowed to develop domestic sources. States are going to have to grant the feds the power to set uniform fuel standards. This is a lot to ask for, but this and more is what it will take. Anything less then an across the board rethinking of our energy policy will be like slapping a band-aid on a cut artery; just too little to be effective. And if it is ineffective, then expect the President of Iran to be correct when he says that oil is a strategic resource that needs to find its true (and in his mind MUCH higher) price. This is the guy that thinks $200 a barrel for oil is not unreasonable.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
It would take 10 years from one drop of gasoline from ANWAR to reach your car. You would only save 1-2% a gallon on the gasoline. And, big oil would still get to keep their tax breaks.
WHY BOTHER?