Plus you can't just slap something on that wound and be done with it. You're a last word guy and keep coming back for us to poke it.

I was just hoping that you would explain the cause of these speculators all betting on the price rise, what is the cause of the anticipation?

As long as we keep printing money the value of the dollar will drop. Oil may be priced in dollars but the oil producers aren't going to take less for their oil just because we are devaluing the dollar. So they don't care that we are devaluing our dollar, they will just ask for more of them. The value of oil, gold and swiss francs aren't going up, it's that our dollar isn't buying as much of them anymore. Liberals that don't understand their "HOPE AND CHANGE" guy isn't doing anything to strengthen the dollar but instead is weakening the dollar by increasing the supply without a corresponding demand for them. In fact the demand for dollars is even less because of the recession but they are being printed at a record rate, which was reason the economy tanked in the first place under Bush. I don't think our liberal friends understand Economics 101 as much as they claim to.

An inflationary monetary policy is good for people who own real estate and stocks as the inflation is meant to prop these sectors of the economy up, so these people are the winners, which are generally old rich people. The losers are people who earn wages and buy commodities, because inflation doesn't help raise wages or lower commodity prices, so the losers are generally younger poor people.

NASHUA, N.H. (AP) - President Barack Obama, turning his political sights on snowy New Hampshire, demanded that Congress eliminate oil and gas company subsidies that he called an outrageous government "giveaway." Though politically a long shot, the White House believes the idea resonates at a time of high gasoline prices.

"Let's put every single member of Congress on record: You can stand with oil companies or you can stand up for the American people," Obama said, reiterating an appeal he made last year as gas prices were rising.

The president also said GOP charges that his policies are driving up gas prices won't pass "a political bull-detector" test and pointed to a chart that showed decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. His remarks came as retail gasoline prices rose Thursday to a national average of $3.74 per gallon.

Obama has repeatedly called for an end to about $4 billion in annual tax breaks and subsidies for oil and gas companies, government support that Obama has said is unwarranted at a time of burgeoning profits and rising domestic production.

"It's outrageous. It's inexcusable. I'm asking Congress: eliminate this oil industry giveaway right away," he told a crowd at Nashua Community College after touring the school's automotive lab.

It was Obama's latest and most direct appeal to Congress to act on the tax breaks, a move that is certain to get stiff Republican opposition and that failed before even when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. But an administration official said the White House expects Congress to soon take up a measure ending some subsidies. The official requested anonymity to avoid speaking publicly without authorization.

Last year, a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that was getting renewed attention on Thursday concluded that Obama's oil and gas proposals "may have the effect of decreasing exploration, development, and production, while increasing prices and increasing the nation's foreign oil dependence." It also said such an impact would likely be on "a small scale."

Criticized by Republicans for taking too much credit for increasing oil production at home, Obama made sure to credit both his administration and that of his predecessor, George W. Bush, without mentioning Bush by name. The move seemed intended on stripping away that line of criticism from his opposition.

Obama's insistence on a congressional vote on the oil and gas subsidies came a day after he and House and Senate leaders held a luncheon meeting at the White House that House Speaker John Boehner described as encouraging and hopeful.

But on Thursday, Republican presidential contenders and GOP leaders in Congress denounced Obama's appeal for ending subsidies and called on Obama to take further steps to expand oil production in the United States.

"If someone in the administration can show me that raising taxes on American energy production will lower gas prices and create jobs, then I will gladly discuss it. But since nobody can, and the president doesn't, this is merely an attempt to deflect from his failed policies," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said.

White House spokesman Jay Carney shot back that oil companies are making big profits and "it doesn't make sense for the taxpayer to cushion their already very robust bottom line."

Obama went further than he has in the past in describing how the global standoff with Iran is driving up the cost of gasoline.

"The biggest thing that's causing the price of oil to rise right now is instability in the Middle East - this time it's Iran," Obama said. "A lot of folks are nervous about what might happen there, so they are anticipating there might be a big disruption in terms of flow."

Obama has previously identified tension with Iran as a main reason for rising oil prices, but this time he ad-libbed the remark about how the prospect of a reduction in the supply of oil is making the markets nervous.

The United States and its partners are trying to deter Iran from building a nuclear weapon, including with an unprecedented European embargo on Iranian oil that takes effect this summer. Iran has responded to tightening economic sanctions and the possibility of an Israeli attack with threats to block oil shipments from the Persian Gulf.

On the presidential campaign trail, GOP front-runner Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich also decried Obama's energy policies.

"He's going to talk about how he's responsible for the increasing production of oil in this country, oil and gas in this country," Romney said in Fargo, N.D. "Is he responsible for the increase? No, I didn't think so."

Gingrich, campaigning in Woodstock, Ga., called on Obama to fire Energy Secretary Steven Chu, approve a Canada-Texas pipeline and open more of the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska to oil drilling.

"He ran in 2008 on the slogan, `Yes we can.' He's running this year on the slogan `Why we couldn't,"' Gingrich said.

In choosing New Hampshire to deliver an energy message, Obama chose a state he easily carried in 2008. He and his surrogates have paid particular political attention to the state in recent months. It offers only four electoral votes in the November election, but Democrats have been eyeing New Hampshire warily following its sharp shift to the right in the 2010 midterm elections.

However, a poll conducted in New Hampshire in early February showed Obama beating Romney by 10 percentage points in a hypothetical matchup. Other GOP presidential candidates also trailed Obama in the WMUR Granite State poll. It gave Obama an 8-point advantage over Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who is a favorite in libertarian-leaning New Hampshire, and an advantage of more than 20 points over both Gingrich and Santorum.

So, if you take the 4 billion in oil company subsidies away will the price of gas go down?

Can I get back to you on that?



(Let's see....profit drops by 4 B....how to recover?)
(Oh, I know.....raise the price to the consumer!)
(I'm a damn genius! )

*raises hand*

I know, Jerry!! I know!!

(Probably shoulda checked with KK before going out on a limb like this.)

I wonder how actually-efficient the price of gasoline is.

It's sort of like an Oligopoly (did someone say OILgopoly?) where it's in everyone's interest for prices to be about the same and to creep them higher. So everyone watches each others prices and they all sort of collectively creep them up.

I wonder how we could make that market more efficient at setting prices for consumers? I'm NOT arguing for govt regulation -- rather examining how we coudl change our buying modes (e.g. buying futures, or block contracts?) to try to put the companies in a position to bid competitively for our business, vs just sort of paying the price at the pump.

Well congress in in direct control of...

1) Inflation and 2) War, so I'd expect that they would blame anyone but themselves.

Your article says: "global demand shocks, such as those caused by turmoil in the Middle East, account for the largest share of oil price fluctuations."

It also quotes the federal reserve as saying: "speculation contributed around 15 percent to oil price increases." Go back and read it again so it sinks in, that's 15% of the oil price INCREASE not 15% of oil prices. Although the congress has it wrong in their letter, when they quote the federal reserve they say 15% of the price, not 15% of the increase. So either congress is deliberately trying to mislead you or are so stupid that they can't even read the Federal Reserves own report that they are quoting. I don't care which it is, either way they should be thrown out of office for either being untrustworthy or incompetent (in fact they are probably both).

So why are you so worried about the 15% of the price increase caused by speculators and not worried about 85% of the price increase caused by increased demand, inflation and threat of war? Well that Federal Reserve report says "global demand shocks are the most important driver of oil prices, accounting for up to 45% of oil price fluctuations." But they are lumping threat of war and increased demand together here. This leaves 40% of the price increase to inflation. So why are you crying about speculation and not inflation? Especially since inflation and the threat of war drive speculation up as well. Even the federal reserve's report linked from that article says that the reason speculators are buying oil futures is "as a means to diversify risks such as inflation." Inflation is also hurting you in other areas as it is making other things besides oil more expensive as well yet it leaves wages flat.

Inflation and war are things that are completely under the government's control and can be changed by a simple election. Big multinational companies can still speculate on oil elsewhere outside our borders because oil is a worldwide market, regardless of what laws congress passes on speculation. Any such speculator law, which by the government's own admission, is only effects 15% of the price increase, is just a band-aid on a cancer patient. It doesn't address the majority (85%) of the problem, or even the cause of the speculation.

Why don't you quit ball washing the democrats in congress and Obama, and admit that they are the real problem rather than rushing over here to repost some article that is written by some moron journalist "spinning the facts" for consumption for moron readers.

It's also really nice that the source that the journalist used to make his claims was contradicted by the source itself and that the link to the source is dead, so here is a good link: http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2011/2011-027.pdf If you even bother to read it, which you probably don't have the intellectual capacity to anyway, you will see that this basically disproves everything you were saying in this thread.

In short, you are a complete and utter moron, so quit posting partisan propaganda you read in the news over here because it only convinces other morons such as yourself. Read the sources before posting because your article just contradicted yourself big time and made yourself look like a fool.