0
   

Obunga: "Get used to higher gas prices"

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2011 04:47 pm
@H2O MAN,
And you have missed mine, given the long history of conservatives acting like women by saying they want one thing while doing the opposite on the issue of role of government you boys dont have much credibility. When conservatives have talked about small government during my lifetime they have usually meant fencing off government accounts from the riff-raff so that they could pass more loot out to their well heeled friends.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2011 05:05 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
REMEMBER that when he runs for re-election
.

What party had two presidents who have ownerships in oil?

What party wish to give another very large tax break to the super wealthy at the same time as gutting SS and medicare?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2011 05:31 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
time for the next round of "everything will be OK if we just get the right guy in office".....America has deep and long running structural economic and social problems, we have a population that is poorly educated and unrealistic and cheap and greedy....you guys who focus one one or a few individuals being the problem are no less lost than everyone else.


All of that is true; nonetheless it certainly couldn't HURT anything to have a competent person in the whitehouse.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2011 05:48 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
All of that is true; nonetheless it certainly couldn't HURT anything to have a competent person in the whitehouse.
You are not exactly a champion of the kind of guy we need, one who is politically talented, who understands where both the Libs and Conservatives are coming from, and who tends to respect people if they agree with him or not. First we need to find such a person, then we need to convince him to put himself into the meat grinder political process, then though a primary system that penalizes sensible folks, then he needs to win an election. I am not holding my breath.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2011 06:35 pm
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obamas_high_food_price_policy_1.html

Quote:

The price of corn has reached a record $7 a bushel. Other basic foodstuffs, including wheat, sugar, and soybeans are selling at or near record prices. Milk prices as well have risen to record levels, making it more difficult for families to purchase milk for their children. It is Obama, more than anyone, who is responsible for this state of affairs.

While food prices have always been volatile, today's high prices are not just the result of weather and other natural forces. They are the consequence of a sinister conspiracy on the part of the left to raise prices and force an ever larger number of Americans into dependency. As of early March, milk prices were setting new record highs, along with near record highs for corn, wheat, soybean, and other staples. Where is the President on this? He is out there promoting ethanol mandates that burn 40% of the U.S. corn crop, raising the price of everything from milk and meat to pop-tarts.

Obama claims to care deeply about the lives of ordinary working Americans, but he is the one responsible for rising food and energy prices. When Americans went to the store in February and found that their food costs had risen at an annualized rate of 7.2%, they had Obama to thank for it.

It is not just the President's policy of expanding ethanol subsidies. It is also a weak-dollar policy that forces Americans into competition on unequal terms with foreign buyers. On March 25 the USDA revealed transactions that strongly suggest the return of China to U.S. corn markets. As a result, corn future prices climbed 14%. That increase of 14% will affect what American consumers can expect to pay in the months ahead for basic foodstuffs. If the dollar weakens further against the Chinese yuan, as many expect (and against other currencies), American consumers may find themselves paying more than that for global commodities like food.

The President's solution to rising food prices is, of course, more government. With 25 million Americans unemployed, over 15 million Americans on Social Security disability (SSDI or SSI), and over 43 million Americans on food stamps, Obama's "solution" is to increase dependency even further. The President's 2012 budget proposal includes increases in funding for the government's food stamp and WIC programs, while it continues funding at record levels for a myriad of other food programs.

If Obama were truly concerned about food security, he would address the fundamental issues, not try to paper them over by paying out ever larger sums of borrowed money to an ever larger number of recipients. But the Democrats are never going to address the fundamental issues -- partly because of pressure from environmentalists, unions, and corn-state lobbyists and partly because they want more Americans to be dependent on government assistance.

Democrats actually seem pleased to find that 43 million Americans are dependent on food assistance and that the number has risen by almost 30% million since Obama took office. That level of dependency translates into a large block of reliable votes.

Once they become dependent on government food aid, welfare recipients constitute a lifetime constituency focused exclusively on maintenance and expansion of benefits. No wonder Democrats aren't interested in reducing the cost of food and other essentials. Or, for that matter, increasing the number of jobs within the private sector. Their interest lies in nudging more and more Americans onto the dole.

This is not the first time that a left-wing president has consolidated his power by expanding dependency. During the Great Depression, FDR's alphabet-soup of relief agencies enrolled millions in unproductive make-work projects, even as crops went unharvested and industrial plants lay idle. As Amity Shlaes has shown in The Forgotten Man, Roosevelt's socialist boondoggles prolonged the Depression by years.

What is happening today, however, is unique: this is the first time in American history when an administration is deliberately forcing food prices higher in order to increase dependency and extend government control over the economy.

There is hardship ahead even for those not dependent on government aid. Despite our nation's vast agricultural resources, Americans are not immune to the kinds of food shortages that have existed throughout human history and that continue to exist in developing countries today. It takes only a short time for a nation to slip from abundance into impoverishment.

Most Americans do not think of Romania as a resource-rich nation, but a century ago Romania, with its productive agricultural sector, was among the richest countries in Europe. At that time no one could have imagined the suffering that lay ahead as the country descended into 80 years of war and communist rule. The abundant harvests that had once fed Romania's people were commandeered by the government and shipped abroad to bankroll the extravagant lifestyle of the rulers and to fund the state security apparatus necessary to defend it. This and fundamental mismanagement resulted in decades of hunger for the Romanian people.

For America the combination of corn ethanol mandates and a weak-dollar policy is, in effect, a "Romania-style" seizure of the nation's food supply. The left is intent on gaining control of America's natural resources -- its agricultural and energy sectors, in particular -- and for exactly the same reason they were seized in communist states such as Romania. The control of food and energy is the means by which the left hopes to gain permanent power over the American people.

America is approaching a future in which food will be expensive and in short supply. The combination of an ever expanding corn ethanol program and the demands of a tighter global market will make food less affordable and less available. What may not be so obvious is that the American left, led by Obama and Democrats in Congress, actually want food prices to rise, just as they want energy prices to rise, so as to create further dependency. If they did not, they would take simple measures to lower prices: eliminate ethanol mandates, eliminate protective tariffs, strengthen the dollar, and allow the free market to govern prices. But none of this will happen with the left in charge because high prices and shortages serve the interest of a party intent on centralized control of the economy.

This disaster can only be averted by the defeat of Obama and of the Democrat-controlled Senate in 2012, and by the removal of leftists from government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Agriculture. Above all, the nation must return to a free-market economy in which prices for food and all else are determined by supply and demand, not by the ambitions of leftists in Washington.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2011 06:51 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Last year, beef and pork prices were up an average of 6%, hitting carnivores' wallets hard every time they were at the grocery store. With wholesale meat prices already up 25% more than last year, the USDA is now warning consumers that this year's increases could be even worse.

Bacon is the cut that's most in danger -- prices for 50% lean pork bellies, the raw material for the best bacon, are up a whopping 64% from last year at this time, to $1.44 per pound. Until last year, the price of pork bellies had never gone above $1 a pound. Now, thanks to high corn prices, prices are rising alarmingly. Just two weeks ago, $1.23-per-pound pork bellies had the USDA predicting beef prices would be up 5.5% this year; they're now predicting a 6% or 7% increase.
http://www.walletpop.com/2011/04/09/beef-pork-prices-could-shoot-up-heres-how-to-save/

Ethanol from corn was a dumb, dumb, dumb idea....40% of our corn now goes for it, and becuase their is so much money for farmers in corn they have switched out of a lot of other crops, driving up the prices from them as well.
Quote:
Corn - For the 2011 U.S. corn crop, it is estimated that U.S. farmers will plant 91-92 million acres
http://www.soybeansandcorn.com/news/Mar30_11-US-Prospective-Planting-Estimates
in 2000 we planed 79 million acres all of it went into food supply. Now we only have 55 Million going for food ( a 30% reduction), and all other grains are more expensive because it decrease land avail to grow them.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 04:09 pm
Hope...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2703690/posts

Quote:


NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil dropped to the lowest level this month on Tuesday as energy experts said the world will remain flush with surplus oil this year despite the loss of Libya's exports and increased demand from Japan.

Oil was also pushed down after Goldman Sachs warned investors that the price had already topped its second-quarter forecast and is due for a "substantial pullback" in the near term. Traders took special notice of Goldman's warning because the investment bank is considered a big player in oil markets, and it's known for bullish price forecasts....


...Fox News reported this morning that the price of gas in Libya is 59 cents a gallon, and it Venezueala it’s only 7 cents per gal. With all the oil that could be gotten out and that the rats and the environmentalist nuts don’t want the oil companies to drill, We shouldn’t have to pay more then 50-60 cents a gallon...
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 08:48 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
...Fox News reported this morning that the price of gas in Libya is 59 cents a gallon, and it Venezueala it’s only 7 cents per gal. With all the oil that could be gotten out and that the rats and the environmentalist nuts don’t want the oil companies to drill, We shouldn’t have to pay more then 50-60 cents a gallon...


Come on those governments are supporting such low prices they are not free market prices.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2011 06:50 am
$8.00 per gallon?

Obama Wants Gas Prices to Hit European Levels

It certainly couldn't HURT anything to have a competent person in the White House again. Replace PrezBO in 12.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2011 07:29 am
The problem definitely is not any sort of a lack of oil in the world. The problem is that there is so much of it that efforts to produce it here can't get any traction and speculators like GS can play their sheep-shearing games forever.

We should be exporting oil and not importing it and there's no rational reason why gasoline should ever cost Americans more than a dollar a gallon and that's generous.

But I'm afraid the only way you'd ever get from here to there is th esame way anybody quits smoking. We need to ban the importation of oil into the United States forever, and do it on a single day. We would be messed up about as badly as we were during WW-II for about a year and would afterwards be vastly better off. The Opeckers would be messed up forever, as they deserve to be.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/26/2022 at 09:13:27