Obama's speech about high gas prices yesterday...touting the payroll tax cut.
"And when gas prices are on the rise again because as the economy strengthens, global demand for oil increases. And if we start seeing significant increases in gas prices, losing that $40 could not come at a worse time," Obama said.

It's only because the economy is getting better!!!

I don't know if I have ever linked oil prices (or any other prices) to the president, no matter who they were. Unless, they have worked to take away all regulation of trading these commodities.

And drilling here, there, and everywhere will not make one iota of difference in the price of oil as long as oil companies sell for the highest price they can get - which is often China and Japan whose economies demand it and who don't have the resources in their own countries to fulfill the demands.

We need to stop whining about gas prices. Outside of Mexico and South America, the U.S. has the cheapest gasoline prices in the world. If we want chepaer oil, we need to nationalize the oil companies that drill on U.S. soil. That's why it's comparatively so inexpensive in Mexico.

When it costs $8.00 plus a gallon, then you might start complaining. Europeans have been paying that for a few years and they find other ways to travel. Their trains are far superior to any in this country. Granted, they don't have to travel the long distance we do. But, their government did have the foresight and vision to see that these trains were going to be very necessary and spent money on their infrastructure. Of course, we can't have that - it would cost too much money and how could we fund our military if that happened?

End of rant.

Now, we are told, that the price 'reflects geopolitical threats', which means speculation. Because consumption is down and production is up.

Pay up or walk!

How many tanks will the Social Security Tax cut buy you?

"I never thought I would live to see the day when a Democratic president ... would agree to put Social Security in this kind of jeopardy," he said. "Never did I ever imagine a Democratic president beginning the unraveling of Social Security." Tom Harkin D-Iowa.

These feet were made for walkin :)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Thursday blamed the "two oil men in the White House," President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and their Republican allies in Congress for gas prices exceeding $4 a gallon.

Oh now we can stop complaining since the price of gas has gone up over 80% since Obama took office...got it.

Full context for the quote from 2008:

Pelosi, a California Democrat, said multiple initiatives intended to lower high energy costs have passed the Democratically controlled House only to "run into a brick wall" in the Senate because they did not receive the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican filibusters.

"The price of oil is... is attributed to two oil men in the White House and their protectors in the United States Senate," Pelosi said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Pelosi said she would continue to oppose two policy changes that President Bush and congressional Republicans have been advocating: lifting the ban on offshore drilling and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration.

Pelosi said she had no plans to allow votes to lift a ban on offshore drilling despite widespread support for the move. A recent CNN poll conducted by the Opinion Research Corp. found that 72 percent of those polled supported more offshore drilling. About a quarter -- 27 percent -- backed Pelosi's position. The poll, conducted June 26-29, has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

Pelosi said there are plenty of opportunities that oil companies should explore before environmentally sensitive areas such as ANWR are open to drilling, pointing to the 33 million acres that have already been approved for offshore drilling and the 68 million acres of federal land in the lower 48 states that is open to exploration.

"The impression that the White House has given you is that if you could drill in these protected areas, the price of gasoline will come down," Pelosi said. "Even the president in his press conference the other day acknowledged that that was not the case."

And don't forget Cheney's energy task force and its secret - now not-so-secret - meetings with oil executives. Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

Cheney Refuses Order for Energy Plan Secrets

A government watchdog agency is losing patience with the White House's refusal to detail secret meetings that produced President Bush's national energy policy and is threatening to take steps that could land the tug of war in the courts.

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, has been pressing Vice President Dick Cheney's office to turn over information on the meetings for more than a month.

Cheney headed up the task force, which drafted Bush's plan to dramatically expand the nation's ability to produce energy. Two Democratic congressman asked the GAO to launch the investigation into Cheney's task force in April, suspecting Bush campaign supporters from the energy industry were getting extraordinary access.

While the White House claims to be cooperating, Cheney -- through his attorney, David Addington -- is refusing to release both the names of people who participated and the schedule of meetings. In letters sent May 16 and June 7, Addington has argued the GAO doesn't even have the right to ask for such information.

Not sure how he managed that.......must be that "leader of the free world" thing.

If that's the case, so much for our economic recovery.

It should be noted too that a comparison of gas prices today with those that existed when Obama took office are bogus from the start. THOSE prices were a direct result of the lack of demand in the midst of the big recession. The price today IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN THE PRICE WE WERE ALL PAYING IN THE SUMMER OF 2008 BEFORE THE CRASH. Remember? Maybe this will jog your memory. See that peak in oil prices in the summer of 2008 and the steep dive in the fall-winter of 2008? That's why your spinning is just so much desperate bs.

I'm always thinking the same thing: Heri, David, Maddie Kt, Dockside.... you all must be gazillionaires by now.

I wish Marshall would share the secret with the rest of us.

Hay

I'm slow this morning. Challenged, I guess. What's wrong with their chart? A bit condensed, but still...

Hay

And gee, here's one for rice. Just another coincidence, and another example of how free markets operated in 2008:

You're just now catching on to that?

Hay

/has nothing to do with the world-wide economic collapse
/dumb socialist Europeans now regulating commodity futures markets
/dumb countries banning food exports
/starving? move to Chicago and start trading yourself. Personal Responsibility

This poll, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds the president's job approval rating 13 points lower among people who say the price of gas is causing them hardship. Forty-three percent of them approve of the president, vs. 56 percent of those who report no hardship. And among the four in 10 feeling 'serious' hardship, just 39 percent approve of Obama's work in office. '

Hey, you got a chart of wheat prices in the Ukraine during the Holodomor years when the Soviet Socialists were regulating the markets?

How about one for Mao's China?

Potatoes in Ireland?

Hay

Gosh, KT, with just a little effort you could start talking like a real Capitalist. There's hope.

Hay

Nobody gives a rip what starving peasants have to pay, except if you can use if for political gain.

I can repost the article about how the Bush Administration head of commodity trading regulation, the guy who refused to investigate futures markets because he believes no price manipulation could possibly happen because the theory doesn't work that way. Just signed a multi-million dollar a year contract as the puff position titular head of the commodity exchange board?

The other unspoken fact the Republicans love to ignore in these debates is the fact that oil prices are set globally. Drilling at home or building the XL Pipeline doesn't create more oil exclusively for the US that we will get at some premium. It doesn't work that way. Whether it is produced here or in another country, oil prices are set by the global marketplace and we simply don't have enough oil in the ground to make much of a dent in prices no matter how much we drill.

I'm going to give you a gold star for today.

Hay

Luckily, when I relocated to this bicycle-friendly city, I got rid of my car. I can walk everywhere, ride the buses, or my bike.

-Ron-

There's always a fear of conflict. If that leaves our president powerless to deal with rising gas prices, we'll have to learn to live with it.

"Its also rather silly to think (as Nik suggests) that improving economic conditions which will inevitably cause higher demands for fuel, can happen without pushing the price upwards.""

Not at all what I said.

KT: "There's actually not alot that can be done to reduce the price in the short term no matter who is in office."

Nik: "If that's the case, so much for our economic recovery."

That was you identifying causes of higher prices. I merely noted the effect will be devastating to our economic recovery.

For those people smart enough to keep Fox News out of their living room, it is an instructive and safe walk through their process. For those of us who have actually watched it over the past three years, it feels like having a root canal six times over.

Still, the book really should be shared with as many people as possible, if for no other reason than to save them from the consequence of too much Fox viewing; namely, being a misinformed citizen, which harms our democracy. On page 168, the authors describe "The Fox Effect," as it relates to fake controversies like Shirley Sherrod and ACORN. But it's far more than that. They also use the same techniques and distorted facts to create fear and discontent for fun and profit. The gas price rise is a shining example.

Conservative activists introduce the lie, or in this case, assign blame for something that happens every year with regularity. For purposes of this illustration, we look to the February 14th front page of The Drudge Report, which ran this zillion-point headline: Gas Price [sic] Up 83% Under Obama.
Fox News devotes massive coverage to the story. The video at the top illustrates this better than anything I could write. Just watch Ed walk through the breathless Fox News reports about how gas prices are up, and domestic oil production would fix everything. Everything!

Fox attacks other outlets for ignoring the controversy. Steve Doocy, on February 16th, snarked his way through this accusation on Fox and Friends:
"As you look at the price of oil going through the roof, and nobody's talking about it, this has the opportunity to disrupt what some are saying, 'oh look, good news for President Obama. The economy is getting better.' Not if gas prices mess it up."

Stu Varney on Fox Business Network, Varney & Co:

"[Obama is] benefitting from the drop in the unemployment rate to 8.3%, and the growing perception in the polls that things are getting better and ultimately, with the Republican party divided, there needs to be some force outside the system to question that narrative for him to be hurt. Gas prices could be it."

So in this case, they didn't call out other networks by name and complain that they were ignoring it. That would be what they've done with the ridiculous Fast and Furious nontroversy. Still, what they told viewers was that Fox, and Fox alone, had the real key to destroying Obama's chances for re-election due to a Very Real Crisis That Would Doom Us All. Just for good measure Brent Bozell, founder of Media Research Center, chimed in on February 23rd criticizing the media, who he claims continue to downplay the story to help Obama.

Mainstream outlets begin reporting on the story Dutifully, CNN picked up the story on February 17th. Brian Williams reports with furrowed brows on February 20th that high gas prices could have serious political ramifications. He had also reported on February 14th that gas prices were pinching the middle class, but not with the lede that there might be political ramifications. That came six days later. Jake Tapper and George Stephanopoulis discuss "Rising Gas Prices as a Political Football" on February 21st.

Media critics, pundits praise Fox News' coverage. Alex Alvarez, writing for Mediaite, asks "Is the Media Fearful of Taking On Rising Gas Prices Under Barack Obama?" on February 20th. Former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino complains that the media is giving Obama a pass but blamed Bush for rising gas prices, also on February 20th, also reported by Mediaite. I fully expect to have all Sunday shows address it with the assistance of John McCain, John Bolton, and a few other notable Republican repeaters.

The story falls apart once the damage is done. This is an ongoing story, but there are already cracks in the armor. President Obama, for example, came out today with the strongest criticism of Republicans', and by extension, Fox News' message around gas prices. Here's what he said, and it's in the video at the top just before the Fox echo chamber to get the full visual effect:

"Now, some politicians they see this as a political opportunity. I know you're shocked by that. (Laughter.) Last week, the lead story in one newspaper said, "Gasoline prices are on the rise and Republicans are licking their chops." (Laughter.) That's a quote. That was the lead. "Licking their chops." Only in politics do people root for bad news, do they greet bad news so enthusiastically. You pay more; they're licking their chops.

You can bet that since it's an election year, they're already dusting off their 3-point plan for $2 gas. And I'll save you the suspense. Step one is to drill and step two is to drill. And then step three is to keep drilling. (Laughter.) We heard the same line in 2007 when I was running for President. We hear the same thing every year. We've heard the same thing for 30 years.

Well, the American people aren't stupid. They know that's not a plan, especially since we're already drilling. That's a bumper sticker. It's not a strategy to solve our energy challenge. (Applause.) That's a strategy to get politicians through an election.

Toward the end, this:

Now, none of the steps that I've talked about today is going to be a silver bullet. It's not going to bring down gas prices tomorrow. Remember, if anybody says they got a plan for that -- what?

AUDIENCE: They're lying.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm just saying. (Applause.) We're not going to, overnight, solve the problem of world oil markets. There is no silver bullet. There never has been.

Which, of course, squares with what economists and other political analysts are echoing throughout the current spate of articles about rising gas prices. And Jared Bernstein has a little note in his post Thursday about his concern about oil prices, with this caveat included:

[Note: re: the current Republican efforts to ding the president on rising prices at the pump, I'm with Brad Plumer. I'd probably go further and point out that domestic production, including nat gas, is way up, petroleum imports, including crude, are down, and in fact, 2011 was the first year in decades that we were actually a net exporter of petroleum products -- see figure here. So the dude's got good street cred on the production side; it's just that he doesn't control the global supply... (not to mention seasonal effects).]

That post references Ezra Klein's post which also points out that Nate Silver could not find a direct correlation between gas prices and electoral outcomes.

So what could we possibly conclude from all of this? Well, gas prices are rising. People can see that with their own eyes at the gas pump. The reasons for the rise relate to tighter supplies and not any cutbacks in domestic production. Strike one, Fox News. The Keystone XL pipeline would not change the prices; in fact, there is very little a president or policymakers can do to control the volatility of oil prices. Finally, it may not have any impact on the outcome of the November 2012 election if historical trends are an indicator.

All of these conclusions contradict the Fox News conclusions, which are as follows: President Obama actually wants gas prices to go up to $5.00 in an election year, he intentionally slowed production in order to cause diminished supply, and hammering him with the fact of higher gas prices is a sure-fire way for Republicans to win in November.

So, as others said with high supply and low demand... what is it that has driven up the prices?

Wall Street reform (Dodd Frank) addresses the regulatory lapses in commodities market and things like oil swaps. Goldman Sach's is the largest oil company in the world. This will make a difference and like Jeb Bush said, republicans need tos start thinking in real long term effects not the quick fear mongering answers like drill, baby, drill.

But forget that...Please share and what do you suggest be done about it and what you believe the president should do? ...and what you think a republican president would do?

Reduce the tax on capital gains and call for the elimination of inheritance taxes... then call for opening up protected environments for drilling. And a big push for offshore drilling and demonize California for resisting.

Bush opened up more territory for drilling and prices dropped dramatically.

That just isn't true. Look at any graph of prices - everybody else can do that. Prices peaked in 2008. Or are you imagining that everybody forgot that?

Obama, even after the lifting of the moratorium has slowed down the permit process as much as possible."

Thats an unsubstantiated opinion. How do you explain this.....

The number of active U.S. drilling rigs fell by eight this week to 1,989. Rigs drilling for oil rose by 18 to 1,263, while natural gas rigs fell by 25 to 720, according to Houston-based oil-field services firm Baker Hughes. The number of oil rigs was the highest since Baker Hughes began keeping separate counts in 1987. The gas-rig count was the lowest since October 2009, reflecting prices. In North Texas' Barnett Shale, 57 rigs were drilling Friday, unchanged from a week earlier, according to RigData."

Do you have any idea how silly it looks for 'Conservatives' to parrot FOX and run around telling easily debunked lies about domestic oil, gas, and coal production?

But...

Leading the deepwater development are projects in the U.S. portion of the Gulf of Mexico. Despite an absence of new permits and only the recent resumption of drilling on wells already started before the BP blowout, the region is currently producing over 1.6 million barrels of oil a day, more than anywhere else in the world.

Feb 20, 2012
A major agreement between the U.S. and Mexican governments will open 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas development upon agreed-upon safety protocols, and top U.S. and Mexican officials were present in Los Cabos, Mexico, for the signing.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Mexican Minister of Foreign Relations Patricia Espinosa, and Mexican Minister of Energy Jordy Herrera to sign the Transboundary Agreement, which removes uncertainties regarding development of transboundary resources in the resource-rich Gulf of Mexico," according to DOI, which said the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management estimates the area contains as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

U.S. offshore oil and gas companies and Mexico's Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) will develop the resources together. "The Obama administration is committed to the responsible expansion of domestic energy production," Salazar said. "This agreement makes available promising areas in the resource-rich Gulf of Mexico and establishes a clear process by which both governments can provide the necessary oversight to ensure exploration and development activities are conducted safely."

Calderon and President Obama agreed in May 2010 to reach an agreement on jointly developing reservoirs that were determined to be transboundary. Since then, representatives from the U.S. Department of State, Interior, and Mexico's Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Energy have been negotiating an agreement.

Lets correct the revisionist history on criticisms of Bush. Much of that criticism was related to his oil focused energy policy ignoring alternative energy, conservation, or even gas mileage efficiency which Bush & Cheney ignored saying being a fuel hog was an American right and his crony favoritism to big oil interests with taxpayer funded tax breaks and subsidies while the industry was earning historic profits. You can also give Bush credit for the blood for oil destabilizing invasion of Iraq which raised fuel prices and unleashed Iraq's enemy Iran.

Based on the level of vitriolic hyperbola generated by the Keystone XL pipeline, any hope of rational discussion seems to have been subsumed by lobbyists peddling influence, media sound bites and campaign rhetoric.
There is a better way to reach a decision on Keystone. One that applies bedrock conservative financial principles in a manner all interest groups - Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, teapartiers and occupiers - can agree on.

Require TransCanada to publish its business plan for the project.

The benefits to decision makers are tremendous. For example: In promoting Keystone XL, John Boehner originally claimed 20,000 new jobs would be created. Later, his number rose to 50,000. Eric Cantor uses the phrase "tens of thousands." John Huntsman claimed 100,000. The implication in all the statements is that these will be permanent, middleclass jobs and the jobholders will be Americans.

In a business plan, employees are liabilities and reduce profits, so TransCanada would most likely stick with its published claim that no more than 20,000 man-years of work would be required to complete the entire project. That's man-years of work, not permanent jobs, and includes work performed by existing TransCanada employees. The business plan would also acknowledge that most new jobs would be short-term construction work, much of it unskilled labor at low wages. And there would be fewer than 6500 of those.

Another example: Existing pipelines and refineries in the Midwest are underutilized and have capacity to handle all the oil Canada can produce at least through 2030. Keystone XL would divert oil from these pipelines, increasing the cost of shipping oil through them. The Canadian government has openly expressed concern that Canada exports 97 percent of its energy to the U.S., and has urged Canadian oil companies to "diversify." Indeed, Keystone XL became a priority for TransCanada only after its proposal to build a pipeline across the Canadian Rockies to the coast of British Columbia was tabled due to environmental concerns.

In the world of lobbyists, ad campaigns and political bloviation, these facts have been buried beneath the rhetoric of U.S. energy independence.
None of these facts could be ignored in a legitimate business plan, where we would expect TC to show how it could promise $3.9 billion in additional income by allowing artificial shortages to drive the price of gasoline higher in the Midwest. The plan would also address "diversification," most likely by utilizing refineries in free trade zones, meaning the Canadian petroleum could be refined in Texas and then loaded directly onto tankers headed for foreign ports. As an added benefit, because the oil would technically not be processed or sold in the U.S., there would be no U.S. taxes to pay.

Similarly, a business plan would specify the real value of use of eminent domain to acquire right-of-way. It would include a detailed risk assessment and plan for limiting liability. The extent to which TC expects the U.S. government to hold the corporation harmless and assume liability would be underscored. Because a business plan requires that circumstances be reduced to dollars and cents, there would be no need to speculate on how TC has calculated environmental risks, planned to limit the danger of an environmental catastrophe, or planned for mitigation of a worst-case scenario.

Most important, there is no downside to requiring TransCanada to produce its business plan. The data already exists; it was used to justify the project to the TransCanada Corporate Board and much of it has been presented to Canadian regulators. Because TransCanada is, in essence, asking for a monopoly on transport of Canadian oil to the Gulf of Mexico, there are no competitors to worry about. Because pipelines are not new technology, little proprietary information is involved. Patented processes are already a matter of public record. If there are legitimate trade secrets in the plan, they can be confidentially examined by the Congressional Budget Office and redacted from public releases of information.

If the plan is sound - if the facts support the request - Congress and the President can approve it without fear of political fallout. Given that $42 million has already been spent to win Congressional support for Keystone XL, it is unlikely our legislators will voluntarily change their approach to reviewing corporate requests for favors. That leaves it to us to contact our legislators and demand a saner approach.

Just show us the business plan and make decisions based on facts.

Don't know if you were addressing me, or KT, or someone else. Anyway, prices respond to supply and demand. Doesn't matter what year it is. KT pointed out that fears about interruptions in transporting and accessing oil supplies are part of that picture, and I agree with him.

"But forget that...Please share and what do you suggest be done about it and what you believe the president should do? ...and what you think a republican president would do?"

I've accepted that there is absolutely nothing any President can do to lower gasoline prices in the short term. We just have to wait for smart energy policies and investments in green energy to pay off. In the mean time, all we can do is learn to be grateful for what we have. We certainly should be glad we don't pay $8.00 a gallon like they do in Europe.

This article explains how higher gas prices can be good for us. For now, people should think of high gas prices as a blessing in disguise.

Non price contract heating fuels, off-road motor fuels and heating fuels sold at the pump (kerosene/propane) are sold the same way.

Generally speaking, most gas stations are convenience stores, so the real money is made on high margin products sold inside the store. It's in their best interest to keep prices as low as possible to attract store customers.

Here's an article from August 2008 in which he is quoted: A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Market for Oil Trading

Regulators had long classified a private Swiss energy conglomerate called Vitol as a trader that primarily helped industrial firms that needed oil to run their businesses.

But when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission examined Vitol's books last month, it found that the firm was in fact more of a speculator, holding oil contracts as a profit-making investment rather than a means of lining up the actual delivery of fuel. Even more surprising to the commodities markets was the massive size of Vitol's portfolio -- at one point in July, the firm held 11 percent of all the oil contracts on the regulated New York Mercantile Exchange.

The discovery revealed how an individual financial player had gained enormous sway over the oil market without the knowledge of regulators. Other CFTC data showed that a significant amount of trading activity was concentrated in the hands of just a few speculators. [...]

The biggest players on the commodity exchanges often operate as "swap dealers" who primarily invest on behalf of hedge funds, wealthy individuals and pension funds, allowing these investors to enjoy returns without having to buy an actual contract for oil or other goods. Some dealers also manage commodity trading for commercial firms.

To build up the vast holdings this practice entails, some swap dealers have maneuvered behind the scenes, exploiting their political influence and gaps in oversight to gain exemptions from regulatory limits and permission to set up new, unregulated markets. Many big traders are active not only on NYMEX but also on private and overseas markets beyond the CFTC's purview. These openings have given the firms nearly unfettered access to the trading of vital goods, including oil, cotton and corn.

The oil companies are colluding to raise the price of gasoline to drive up the price of natural gas so that they can pay for the huge investment they are making right now in shale( natural) gas.
His company has natural gas projects back up through 2014.

Phillips announced this morning that they are separating their gasoline refineries from their all their other more profitable business .

Hay-less, come save the day!

"Several factors have contributed to the recent spike in gas prices. Primarily, Iran has responded to international sanctions by threatening to cut off oil shipments to European countries. Additionally, a number of aging refineries have been taken offline by American oil companies (just a coincidence that this is happening in an election year, right?), reducing the supply of gaasoline. Once more, American consumers are being held hostage to events in the Mideast and by the decisions of oil companies. We've seen this before. America fails to develop alternative energy sources, refuses to make the commitment to modern mass transit, and delays demanding greater efficiency from the auto manufacturers. Then gas prices rise because of events across the world, (or because oil companies manipulate the supply) and the cry is raised once again for greater domestic drilling. The truth is, more drilling will not reduce the price of oil, now or later. America's domestic reserves aren't enough to substantially increase the world supply. Aside from that, oil goes where the money is. Increasing domestic production does not mean that it stays here; it will go where the world market dictates. This, of course, does not prevent Obama's opponents from blaming him and his policies for the increase, nor will the facts cause them to refrain from demanding more drilling. Whether this will stick as an election-year issue remains to be seen."

Nodding to all you...Nik, Natal, KT, Nancy, Chole, loling at Marshalz and more.

I hope we (the world) can address fossil fuel dependence before water becomes the most rare commodity in the world.

As far as our little corner of the world, no doubt 5 buck a gallon gas by summer will have a good chance of sinking an Obama second term.