Posted on 02/29/2012 6:05:21 PM PST by Red Steel
As a Georgia Super Tuesday voter, the Michigan and Arizona primary results will (and will not) influence my vote to some degree. Let me explain.
While I want to cast my vote for the candidate who shares my views politically and otherwise, the options currently available leave a lot to be desired, and that includes the current president.
But like my fellow voters, I have to decide on one candidate or the other, whether one of them fits the bill perfectly or not.
Of the Republicans, Newt Gingrich is the only one with ties to Georgia. He's also the only presidential primary candidate willing to venture into the northern portion of the state this week in advance of the Super Tuesday primary.
-snip-
However, I really like one thing that Newt said in North Georgia on Tuesday of this week:
"Newt equals $2.50 per gallon."
Who in America couldn't jump for joy if we could see $2.50 per gallon for our vehicle gasoline cost again?
-snip-
Romney, on the other hand, fresh off the Michigan and Arizona victories, appears to be leading. But he barely won his own home state, and that speaks volumes to Southerners like me.
It makes me wonder if he is the leading candidate, not because he is liked (or believed to be a good option for turning things around), but, instead, because he has deep political fundraising pockets.
And I can't help but go back to what Gingrich said on Tuesday, despite Santorum and Romney's "almost tie" in Michigan,
"16 million new jobs were created," Gingrich said, when he and Ronald Reagan worked together. If Gingrich was instrumental in seeing 16 million new jobs created all those years ago,
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I haven’t seen anything related. Yours would be the best info I’ve seen.
LOL!!! Evasive, but you put a smile on my face!
Global demand is up, but you may also want to consider that oil priced in gold or silver, is not high in historical price.
Of course it's not, silver and gold are at historic highs themselves. But I think I get your point that it's not all just supply and demand... there's the value of the dollar to consider. Is that what you are getting at or am I missing your point?
The current price of gas is not the same at three successive gas stations. One would have to be mentally deficient to not understand.
Contact his campaign and tell them that Newt just darn well better start saying "somewhere around the general neighborhood vicinity of $2.50 a gallon, give or take..." or you will keep calling people stupid! That will show them.
Supply and Demand are certainly driving the market. In the futures market, which is what is usually discussed, it is the expected Supply and Demand. But when looking at absolute dollars, then you have to take into account the value of the dollar as well. You've got it.
Like "Hope and Change", it is meaningful to the ignorant and recognizably dishonest to the informed.
He is saying he will push policies that drive down the price,
Agreed and I believe it true.
and is convinced he can bring it to that area with those policies.
Actually, I believe he is smarter than that, but that he believes he is speaking to a audience that is not.
More detailed info on recent petroleum pricing if interested:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2853528/posts
Given all that Obama has done to drive up the price of oil, all he has failed to do to bring it down, and all he has done to weaken the dollar and the economy as a whole, how all of those things have effected perception and consequently the market value of both oil futures and the dollar itself, and finally that gas was $1.89/gal when he was sworn in... do you believe that even reversing those policies, returning to a Reagan like approach to the economy, and implementing the other plans Newt has proposed, that the damage done by Obama is simply too great to realistically expect to return to $2.50/gal? Or is your issue not that a return to $2.50 is implausible, but that it's just dishonest for Newt to base his campaign on the premise that he can make good on such an absolute line in the sand?
“If you have twitter and/or facebook, make sure you put Newt’s quotes, policies/positions, speeches e.t.c. out there.”
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/29/obama-loses-his-first-debate/
Newt Gingrich :
“After I came out for a program to get to $2.50 a gallon
gasoline, Obama decided he had to make a speech on energy. It is a very revealing speech.
It is factually false, intellectually incoherent, deeply conflicted on policy and in some places just strange.”
Gingrich exposed Obama’s confusion regarding fracking, saying that:
“Obama lives in this fantasy world of government subsidies. He says,
quote, “It was public research dollars that over the years helped
develop the technologies that companies are right now using to extract
oil and natural gas.” Just to set the record straight, fracking began in
Kansas in 1947 and it expands to Oklahoma in 1949. It’s done in Canada
in the 1950s. And George Mitchell and the private sector are regarded as
the pioneers in the development of “fracking.”
This would be like suggesting that the Air Force invented the airplane
and they don’t know who these two Wright Brothers are because, after
all, they were private sector guys who were just bicycle mechanics, and
how could they have invented the airplane when actually
it must have been the Air Force because everything that was good is done by the government.
That is the Obama mindset.”
Gingrich summarizes:
“Obama’s is a very revealing speech. You have an intellectual left
winger who lives in a fantasy world in which he very cleverly uses
language to say things that aren’t true that sound good because he
knows that if he tells you what he really wants to do, you will defeat
him in a landslide.
One of our jobs, of course, is to make sure that
the American people understand what he really wants to do. Our choice
is between energy independence and never again bowing to a Saudi King
and $2.50 gasoline and about $18 trillion in royalties over the next
generation; enough you could literally pay off the national debt just
with the royalties for the federal government from development with no
tax increase, and at least a million new jobs. That is our side.
Obama’s side is a series of fantasies in which your tax money is thrown away on products that are not commercially feasible,
while you pay higher and higher prices, and are coerced into smaller and smaller and smaller vehicles.
These are the two futures we are going to campaign on this year.”
I want gas to be $1.85 a gallon - like it was on the day Obama was elected.
Obama and dems can screw with our enemies in the ME to get the price of gas down for election day - and to gin up the ‘improvement’... a lie that it will be...
Dem policies have inflated prices of everything - food, gas, almost everything except housing.
Obama’s lies and The Truth:
Even though the US is the world’s third largest oil producer, it has
had to import 90 billion barrels of oil at a net cost of $3.1 trillion since 1975, $2 trillion in the last ten years.
Roughly two-thirds of the oil consumed in the US over the past decade is imported.
http://dailyreckoning.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/5/files/2011/08/DRUS08-23-11-2.png
US Crude Oil & Petroleum Products:
Domestic Supply - 2,755,156 oil barrels
Import Supply - 4,304,533 oil barrels
Domestic crude oil, in 2010 - 1,998,137
Import Crude Oil, in 2010 - 3,362,856
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_d_nus_mbbl_a_cur.htm
What Newt is saying - developing the national resources, means to stop buying imported oil for roughly $500 billion a year will create jobs and processing local crude oil, will make the free market working and necessarily lower the energy price, gasoline included.
After all, when Obama was inaugurated the gasoline was at $1.87 the gallon. I don’t see why the price couldn’t get down to that, if all the anti-energy regulations of his administration were repealed.
It happens in North Dakota, where oil is extracted on private land, it can happen on national scale if some federal land and offshore are open to oil and gas processing.
Thank you. Yes, I am interested.
“I do believe. I do believe that NEWT knows what and how to get things done and he has said so. I believe he will get something going right off the start, day 1. “
Newt Video: $2.50 Gas. Join us to make it happen
Newt Gingrich’s speech from the rally in Dalton, GA on his $2.50 per gallon of gas plan from Tuesday, Feb. 28th.
It is that the price of oil and the associated cost for gasoline is a far bigger market than the US. Much of the world is paying an even higher cost than the land-locked WTI quoted from the NYSE.
Or is your issue not that a return to $2.50 is implausible, but that it's just dishonest for Newt to base his campaign on the premise that he can make good on such an absolute line in the sand?
I understand that control the price of oil is a far larger requirement than just what happens within the US borders in the next 4 years.
I agree with both of your statements... but you didn’t answer either question, which is fine if you don’t want to. I don’t want to misunderstand and consequently misrepresent your position.
do you believe that even reversing those policies, returning to a Reagan like approach to the economy, and implementing the other plans Newt has proposed, that the damage done by Obama is simply too great to realistically expect to return to $2.50/gal?
I believe price of oil to be capable of dropping such that gasoline would be $2.50 in the near future. I do not believe that can be done solely by changes in the US over 4 years.
Or is your issue not that a return to $2.50 is implausible, but that it's just dishonest for Newt to base his campaign on the premise that he can make good on such an absolute line in the sand?
That is more the case. It is beyond the control of any US president to so greatly influence the world oil market with 4 years to make such a promise.
It could actually be done with price controls and tax payer subsidies, but that is not what he wants, nor any of us should want.
Thank you for clarifying your position. Also, please forgive my implying you were avoiding the question.
I believe price of oil to be capable of dropping such that gasoline would be $2.50 in the near future.
Thank you.
I do not believe that can be done solely by changes in the US over 4 years...It is beyond the control of any US president to so greatly influence the world oil market with 4 years to make such a promise.
I agree that the US President does not directly control the price of oil (and shouldn't), and although I (and obviously Newt Gingrich and his, to my knowledge yet unnamed, Oil Industry expert) disagree with you on the degree to which a President is able to successfully influence it by executive policy, I recognize the validity of considering external factors outside the President's influence.
My optimism is largely based on the following: I think it is reasonable to conclude that as we approach or achieve producing more oil than we consume, that the downward pressure on global prices created by the loss of US demand for imports combined with the addition of any surplus US supply, would far exceed any upward pressure any subsequent global market condition would be able to exert on prices inside the US.
If Newt becomes the next President, then time will tell if (and if, then how quickly) he will be able to make good on his promise. Newt does has a remarkable track record of making good on arguably pie-in-the-sky campaign promises.
With all the above in mind, I think the $2.50 promise is neither implausible nor dishonest. I do respect your right to disagree. Speculating about the future is never purely objective. I also appreciate the civility with which you've defended your position. Thank you for that.
Regardless of our differing opinions, I think Newt is doing a fantastic job of putting Obama on the defensive and framing this to the advantage of whoever wins the Republican nomination.
If we had a major push to step up oil production, opening all areas, we would not see a surplus in Newt's lifetime, let alone the next presidential term.
Even assuming Newt's expert is wrong and you are right in terms of time to result, do you disagree is my statement?
"I think it is reasonable to conclude that as we approach or achieve producing more oil than we consume, that the downward pressure on global prices created by the loss of US demand for imports combined with the addition of any surplus US supply, would far exceed any upward pressure any subsequent global market condition would be able to exert on prices inside the US."
Also, what do you think would be the effect of a "real push" towards being energy independent and a "real push" to reverse Obama's economic policies on futures speculation? I might ask essentially the same thing by saying, "how much of the current high price of crude is driven my the anticipation of potential interruption of supply due to the political instability of our import suppliers and by the perception that Obama's policies are going to destroy the value of the dollar?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
