Obama's Energy Plan? Punish Suppliers, Buy Votes, Tap Reserves

Clearly, Obama isn't interested in increasing oil supplies. His windfall profits tax will only blunt the market's message that oil supply needs to be raised, exacerbating the crisis further. The blatant vote-buying on display here--vote for me and I'll tax someone else and give you the money--is just sickening.

McCain needs to keep hammering on this. Obama's plan is a non-plan, meant to appeal to the economically illiterate. (That comment about Middle East oil, for instance, indicates either a serious misunderstanding about the fungibility of oil, or a deliberate attempt to distract voters; change, my ass.)

I can't keep track of Obama's positions anymore. First he's for it then he's against it then he's for it again.

OMG if I have to vote for McCain to keep Obama out of office... I just... damn.

I sooooooooooooooooooo don't want to vote for McCain.

Given Michigan's importance, I wonder if Obama will ratchet up the pandering as November approaches.

In fact, here's a 3-point pandering plan for Michigan:

• Guarantee a "green-collar" job for every single displaced auto industry worker
• Promise that the pay and benefits will meet or beat that of unionized auto industry jobs
• Promise that every single "green-collar" job will be "protected" by the UAW

A complete fantasy? Pie in the sky? Of course, but if it carries a critical swing state...

#1: What's he going to replace oil with?
#2: How many decades before this magic green tech happens?
#3: How much will it cost?

Of course. In addition to those 3 valid questions, there are countless other questions that could uncover issues that would totally scuttle any "green" plans.

So what's the point?

If the pandering pols have their way, none of those questions will need to be answered until November 5th.*




*At the earliest.

Nah. I'd say buying votes with other people's money is probably the most dangerous and urgent threat we've ever faced.

I'm not seeing much hope or change in Obama's rather Carter like suggestions. What I am seeing is his demand for citizens to give even more money to the federal government than it already does.

The government has repeatedly demonstrated how irresponsible and inept it is with managing a budget now. How is giving them more money to blow a solution for anything.

His plan does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of supply and demand for oil in the US.

Maybe Obama is hoping like Jimmy Carter that we would simply stop using oil. We don't need ships coming into port, you know those ships that rely on oil and oil by products. We don't need trains, or trucks bringing things into the stores.

Maybe Obama is looking for a way to reinvigorate the buggy whip industry or something by forcing us to ride horses again. Does anyone know how much CO2 a horse farts into the air each day?

Obama has raked in over $20 mil from lawyers, does that mean he's in the pocket of the ambulance chasers?

Hmmm... is he a Democrat and friends with John Edwards?

Note that George H. W. Bush released 21 million barrels of oil from the strategic reserve because of high prices. So it was good enough for Bush, but it's not good enough for Obama?

Yes, he did. Clinton did as well. But, unless we are drilling for more of our own oil, the impact of that small amount of oil being into the system is very minimal at best. It helps for the day it happens and that is about it.

But enough about McCain's gas tax "holiday"....

But McCain has the experience and leadership ability to do it now!

While I thought the gas tax holiday was a dumb idea, at least it didn't entail state confiscation of private property to implement.

McCain's talking about new nuclear plants and relaxing our much-too-rigid rules on offshore drilling to increase oil supply...Obama's talking about checking your tire pressure.

I completely concur, and any sympathy I had for Obama is gone.

Just for clarity though, don't forget that Bush did the exact same thing, and McCain plans to continue doing the exact same thing, by handing out "tax cuts" without cutting expenses. It's just deferred payback.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html

I don't know if the above logic is really correct. However, McCain, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP controlled Congress and the Executive branch from 2001-2006 inclusive, and did absolutely nothing regarding offshore drilling. Cheney had secret meetings with the oil industry, and the result is higher oil prices. It's clear that the GOP does not have an energy policy which benefits the American consumer.

Can't say for offshore drilling (which states may have opposed), but they sure as hell pushed for more supply, particularly in ANWR. And who resisted that?

Show how your conclusion is backed by your premise or withdraw your allegation.

The American consumer is being hurt by the extremist environmental agenda that has constrained our production of domestic oil for far too many years. We've got to increase supply. You know, working for change, not just hoping for it.

Exactly.

The addiction analogy doesn't even work for Obama's case, because in trying to get someone off an addiction the last thing you do is give them more of it.

What he is proposing in terms of the gas company money though is no different than taking money from taxpayers of tommorow to give benefits to those of today.

Oil as an addiction is a false analogy.

Right now, it's not an addiction, it's food, water and air. Without it western society dies.

So yes, you keep eating, it's the only crop we have at the moment.

We are planting others, but until they ripen, we still need to eat.

It would only die because it has gotten addicted to the stuff; we haven't always been living off oil. And while we continue eating it, we're getting poisoned.

Much slower than we could and should, because we're subsidizing the poisoned crop to hide its poison.

No, we haven't. We also haven't always had grocery stores, overnight shipping, the internet, cell phones, computers, air travel, diesel engines for water and rail freight...

Quite frankly, without oil, we couldn't support our population. Almost all of the food is transported in this manner.

So sure, we could go back to the 1880s. It would just take getting rid of half the world's population.

As far as poison goes, the benefit to mankind that oil has provided us dwarfs the negatives - unless of course you are like Al Gore and are drinking the cool-aid.

Thank you natural variation and climate variability - even the scientists admit that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will nullify any temperature increases until 2015.

I know, I know, that's a bad thing to you because not enough people will die to prove your point.

In the meantime, the science and technology made available to us by our oil and plastics economy is exactly what gives us the capability to find alternatives.

Without plastics for computers, we wouldn't have half the research we have today.

You mentioned plastics in your post. Let's also note that plastics are also being used far more extensively automobiles in order to make them more fuel efficient as well.

This is where we get back to living in distinct realities. I'm not going to go through that discussion yet again. However, I'd think you'd be smart enough to recognize it as a warning sign about the source of your reality when you resort to a phrase such as

Right. Because it's astounding when once in a while, science "gets it right" -- i.e., agrees with your worldview. I'll stick with the cool-aid then.

But does a 150 pound woman really need to drive a 14 mpg GMC Yukon to go to the nail salon? Maybe we need to find more efficient ways to use our oil.

Two-thirds of our oil is used for transportation. Half of that (one-third of the total) is used by cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, etc. If we would simply make more fuel-efficient vehicles, we'd save a lot of oil and a lot of money.

It is really none of your business or anyone else's why anyone chooses to drive the vehicles they purchase.

It is if it has a negative impact on others.

No, it isn't. That is one of the things about choices in the US. They are there to prevent others from interfering with them. You have no right to question others choices in homes, vehicles, or really anything.

If someone makes the choice to blow smoke in my face, or any equivalent, I absolutely do have the right to interfere with them.