Posted by fergus187 (anonymous) on May 24, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought news media wasn't supposed to be politically biased?
please keep in mind when voting, who brought us into a endless war over oil, who emptied our national surplus in less than a year, and who benefited from it all?

"gas prices are determined by market conditions. It’s a situation that oil producers have no control of."
Well then who does?
Who do you think determines how much gets refined?
maybe the same people that tear down refineries and claim to be running at maximum capacity?
what are these "market conditions" you speak of?
I can't speak for anyone else but I personally feel our president and his cartel have deliberately drove prices up by making sure theres a short supply, I agree that more domestic produced oil isn't a bad thing, but just because we have domestic crude doesn't mean more refineries, Have you ever heard of a company willing to invest money into lowering their own profits from the product they produce?
maybe having high ranking oil barons in politics isn't such a great plan?
especially if it really is the lifeblood of our economy.
what is this technology you speak of that allows oil drilling and refining without doing any environmental damage.
do they teleport the oil out now?
can you name one oil drilling location where it has caused no environmental damage?
Can you name any politicians that could be reaping huge profits by driving oil prices up?
profits that pay literally billions more than the paychecks we provide our elected leaders with.
which employer would you be more loyal to?
one who pays a buck an hour or one who pays a thousand an hour, and you partially own?
instead of repeating republican press release talking points, maybe do some actual journalism!

and to clear this up for you, Sen. Amy Klobuchar was elected because she got the majority of the vote, I know this is hard for republicans to grasp sometimes, but that is what elections are meant to determine!
you know "for the people, by the people", not "for my buddies, by my buddies" and the rest should live in poverty while our inner circle gets more obscenely rich by creating debt for our children's children yet to be born.

Posted by Yogi_Bear (anonymous) on May 24, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The writer of this piece blames Senator Klobuchar for our energy problems despite the fact that Senator Klobuchar was sworn-in in January 2007, long after energy prices began to rise exponentially. Senator Coleman has been in office since 2003 when gas was around $1.20/gal and he and his fellow party members did nothing when they had total control of our government, yet the writer blames Senator Klobuchar. When I go in to the voting booth in November, I'll remember that gas prices have nearly quadrupled since Senator Coleman was elected and I'll cast my vote accordingly. If the Republicans couldn't solve the problem in four years with complete control of The House, The Senate, and The White House, maybe its time we let people like Senator Klobuchar give it a shot... I think thats the idea behind Democracy.

Posted by Granny (anonymous) on May 24, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WHAT DID SHE SAY????
I only hear what the writer says.
Heck with it. I need gas not a heck of a lot I can do I need to pay it to get my vehicle to move.
If the headlines say she said it please let us know what she said and let us make up our own minds PLEASE.
THANK YOU.

Posted by Mel (anonymous) on May 24, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't hear what Amy Klobuchar had to say, but I did hear Dick Durban, Maxine Waters, and others, I can't believe they are still in office. Unbelievable!!!!

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on May 25, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Drill more oil in Alaska? Why, so the oil companies can export that oil for larger profits. Are they still exporting Alaska oil to Asia? Last I heard the exports consisted of about 7% of all production up there. The justification for the exports was due to a glut of oil on the West Coast causing prices to fall?

What needs to happen is regulation again. The government needs to take control of the oil industry in a big way. A wind fall profits tax also needs to be implemented immediately. Unfortunately, that won't happen until we get a large democratic majority in congress and a Democrat for a President. Until then, get used to getting ripped off at the pumps. I hear it's gonna cost over $5 a gallon by mid July. Personally, I'm laughing my arse off. You all did it to yourselfs. Chumps!!!

We also need to begin importing Brazilian sugar cane ethanol bigtime. About 7 times more energy in a gallon of sugar cane ethanol than corn ethanol. Remove those 54cent per gallon import tariffs from Brazil's ethanol and quit subsidizing corn ethanol before the world starves to death.

Posted by fergus187 (anonymous) on May 26, 2008 at 1:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"get used to getting ripped off at the pumps. I hear it's gonna cost over $5 a gallon by mid July. Personally, I'm laughing my arse off. You all did it to yourselfs. Chumps!!!" -- mgdbottled

we did this to ourselves?
How so?
I didn't vote for George Bush, and neither did the majority of Americans!
the reason gas prices are going thru roof is because Bush can't be re-elected and he's gonna loot every last penny he can!
he sent the hush money out there already ie. "stimulus checks"
either that or he thought of it as protection money so he doesn't get shot!
just as he bribed Us with promises of checks when he stole his first presidency.
in any case, he's nearly got it to the point where social security might be un-savable.
Just because social security was founded by Democrats?

just think, If you control most of the wealth in a country, and it's most valuble resources, what does it matter who is elected?
The GANG with the most money and resources still controls the show!

why would His cartel spend money on fixing refineries when tearing them down is cheaper and maximizes profits?

ever wonder "where did all our wealth go?"

credit crisis, energy crisis.

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on May 26, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You know, what really disturbs me is the fact that even though the USA imports about 60% of its oil, we only get about 12% from the Mid East. The rest of that 60% comes from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Brazil just hit two major oil fields off their Atlantic coast and it's looking like there's much more down their. Why not get all of our imported oil from the Western Hemisphere? It would be pretty easy to get out of the Middle East completely and leave that rats nest to China, India and the rest of Asia. That 12% is just not worth the blood and treasury.

Posted by Mel (anonymous) on May 26, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We WILL drill in AWR, it is a matter of time. Why is it that the left wants to tax the life out of any business? It has to be envy.(I have noticed this for years) The same people who don't want the tax holiday for the summer, are the same ones who want the windfall tax. The windfall tax won't put a dime in my pocket. We have taxed many companys right out of our borders. Hardly anything is made here anymore. The next thing is to have all refineries move to Candada and Mexico and import all the fuel we need, then cry about it.
OH, and if the gov't takes over the oil companys, like Maxine Waters stated, do you have any idea what a gallon of gas would cost then?
Ethanol is a bad joke, that is a waste of resorces, money and gas mileage.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on May 27, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The factors contributing to the price of oil are far too numerous to go into detail in this short post. However I must say this: if you blame the President completely (or even mostly) for the surging price of oil, you only show your ignorance of the entire process. What did the president do to make prices go up? Nothing. You could blame a tiny percentage of the increase on the Iraq war - but not near enough to say it's his fault prices are this high. An oil shortage is his fault? Impossible. The US hasn't drilled a new oil well in several decades due to Congress (both GOP and Dem controlled), not allowing any drilling - whether it's in ANWR or off our coasts. Also there is a much higher global demand for oil than when GWB took over 7 years ago (and that can't possibly be his fault). Tell me, what - EXACTLY - can the president do to reduce oil prices? He could ask Congress to allow the drilling of more oil wells. And I suppose if they said "no" that would be the Presidents fault? C'mon people...try a little logic here. Oil trades on the open market and, like other commodities/materials the market dictates the price. Not the producers; not the shippers; not the govt.

I do agree we are getting smacked at the pump but I do not, after actually looking into things, blame the president for the vast majority of the oil problem. He is part of the govt and the govt (including Klobuchar, Coleman, and GWB) could have helped out years ago by having some foresight and allowing more oil wells to be drilled in our own nation. Look, Bush is an idiot - possibly the dumbest president we have ever elected - but it is simply not his fault alone (or even mostly) for oil prices.

Posted by lonvg (anonymous) on May 27, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the level of ignorance represented by the responses to Mr. McKenzie's article posted above, after all we are living in an age of emotion not rationality.

The market for oil is global: greater worldwide demand with no comparable increase in supply means higher prices, both at the wellhead and at the pump. Speculation exacerbates the effect. Political constraints on the market ranging from drilling restrictions, to not permitting the construction of new refineries, to slowing the growth of substitutes for oil (nuclear and coal), to increased gas taxes all contribute to the pain we all feel. Yes, the oil companies are seeing record profits, but that's not the whole story.

And crackpot conspiracy claims about President Bush trying to bleed the country dry, or that the Iraq war was long-planned blood for oil exercise might even be funny if they weren't so sad. But if it makes you feel better to rant incoherently, by all means do so. It's your right to embarass yourself publicly. Besides, you won't hurt the president's feelings: he's a grown up and can take it.

Bottom line: nothing is free. You want to protect the environment in Alaska and the Gulf Coast by banning oil exploration and drilling? Fine. You'll can expect higher prices as a result. You want to drive to The Cities or Fargo for entertainment or business? Fine. You have to pay what the market is charging, or go back to the kind of lives our great grandparents lived. You want to tax the profitablity away from the oil companies or even nationalize them in a fit self-righteous, collectivist anger? Fine. Watch what happens to innovation and exploration. Think the government can do a better job? Just look at the the former Soviet Union, Easten Europe, Cuba and China to see how well that works. The biofuel debacle is classic example that we have seen play out right before our eyes.

No, Senator Klobuchar is not responsible for the price of gas at the pump. But her efforts, inclinations and comments aren't going to get us anywhere near a solution.

Nobody is saying you have to like paying more for gasoline or airplane tickets. But the problems (and solutions) are far more complex than these rabid, incendiary leftists can comprehend and will ever admit.

Posted by wes (anonymous) on May 27, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

by most of the comments posted here is it any wonder
why we end up with the goverment we have today and
then asked how could this happen.

Posted by T_Bone (anonymous) on May 27, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

longv says: "Tell me, what - EXACTLY - can the president do to reduce oil prices?"

8 years ago he could have pushed for more research into hydrogen fuel, and biofuels, we'd be that much farther today. Oil prices would go down if oil had any meaningful competition. Instead of handing out billions in tax breaks to the oil companies, he could offer tax incentives for new energy technology. He could push for tougher cafe' fuel standards for the auto industry, meaning eventually less demand for gas. Instead of spending trillions in Iraq, that money could go to building nuclear power plants and nuclear waste disposal systems here. We could spend more on national transit solutions, rather than cutting taxes for the top 1% income people. We'd use less gas if the speed limit was lowered, like it was done in the past. The Presdient could do this by tying it to federal road funds,

There's plenty a president can do, IF we had someone with some vision, which we do not, yet.

Posted by lonvg (anonymous) on May 27, 2008 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

T-Bone-

"Tax the rich" is your solution? The top 1% of income earners already pay more than 33% of all income taxes. Expand that to the top 5% of earners and you account for more than half of all income taxes paid. The top 10% pay nearly 2/3 of all income taxes, and the the top 50% of earners pay more than 96% of all income taxes. The "rich" you so dispise are already doing much more than their share.

At the same time, I'm always happy to see somebody being so cavalier with tax dollars for causes they support, even as they rage against tax breaks for others. "Managing" the economy simply doesn't work. Get government out of the way and let the market do its job - that's the only way things get done.

What speed limit would you suggest? We used to have 55, but even that is not as efficient as 43 mph. How does that grab you? It's an awfully slippery slope once you indulge your desire to regulate other people's behavior. Rather than mandate what cars other people may drive and how fast they may drive them - why not let the market do its job? It's simple: The faster you drive the more it costs. The problem takes care of itself. By all means, set your own cruise control to 45 and stick to the right lane and you can laugh at everybody passing you for how much more gasoline they're paying for.

Finally, for all his failings, it's not the president's fault that nuclear power plants and disposal sites aren't being built. You can lay that directly at the feet of the left-wing, know-nothing, enviro-nut Democrats in Congress and their supporters over the last 25 years. Lots of passion and chanting and protesting; very little substance.

Overall, put down the DNC talking points and do a little research and some critical thought before spilling your bile. It makes for a far more intelligent debate.

Posted by jafo (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the problem that many people have with this is the fact that, in this time of economic slowdown, oil companies have been making record, if not obscene, profits. Prices have risen drastically, and yet, there is no evidence of shortage. When was the last time you saw a gas station that had no product? We take it in the shorts, paying for something necessary for our daily routine, with little or no options. I'm all in favor of the open market/competition way of things... but when a few have so much control, is it truly "open"? Maybe when companies get too big and powerful, that's when our government needs to step in with some from of regulation. ??? There is not an endless supply of oil, and our leadership has dropped the ball as far as alternative energy... instead of tax breaks, how about real incentives? Some tout nuclear power... and that may be where we go eventually... it's a sure fire way to create energy... but, there is NO safe way to dispose of nuclear waste, and the risks to our planet are/would be huge. Imagine 200 years from now, hundreds, if not thousands of old nuclear power plants, and thousands of spent rods hiding in some supposedly "safe" place. Not a good scenario. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, why are we not pursuing a safe way to harness it? There have been a number of small companies that have made progress... care to guess what has happened to many of them? They have been bought up by... oil companies. There are two reasons for this. One, eliminate the competition. And two, when the oil era does finally come to an end, guess who will be in position to control the next great source of energy??? It's all about control, and money. Control the energy, and you control the wealth. I don't really blame them, it's good business. The problem is again, perception. The perception is that we are being bent over, while the oil companies get filthy rich. I don't think anyone would want to deny a company the right to make a decent profit, but when it becomes excessive, AND there are no real alternatives, AND your government is doing little or nothing to help... it's not difficult to understand why people are upset.

Posted by BloopTriple (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think a lot of good points have been made here on both sides. But one thing is driving me up a wall.

This weak assertion (referenced again in the original letter) that a lot of people hold oil stocks in their portfolios, and therefore high oil prices are good for your stock holdings is blatantly false.

Look at this chart, which tracks the ETF of crude oil versus the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s...

Oil and the stock market have an INVERSE relationship. When oil goes up, the stock market goes down (no, not always, but usually.) The chart doesn't lie.

But oil companies do. When they trot out this argument in ads that high oil is good for us, it's ridiculous. Yes, most of us, through mutual funds or index funds own oil companies in our portfolios. But it's a small part of every index. And when the large, non-oil part of the index suffers greatly, the modest gains in oil stocks don't make up for it.

It's like saying rampant inflation is great, because it means your savings account gets more interest.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

T_Bone - "Tell me, what - EXACTLY - can the president do to reduce oil prices?" I said that, not lonvg. And you did not answer it. You mentioned ideas that could have been done years ago and then, falsely, you said it was the President who was responsible for them. Wrong. Civics 101 tells us that Congress passes laws, the President enforces them, and the Supreme Court dictates their (laws) legality. It's a checks and balances system. Certainly the President could have attempted to get notions implimented. But Congress would have to pass the laws and since nothing, absolutely nothing, has been done in over 30 years to stem the current situation I place the blame on the entire govt (as well as us as we consume the stuff). The President alone cannot do a thing to lower oil prices. And trust me, having to defend GWB makes me throw up a little in my mouth since he is a poor, poor president. But the facts are what they are and he is simply not to blame - entirely or even mostly - for the current oil prices.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you had DishNetwork satellite TV, you could watch the Link TV channel's Mosaic, where an array of Middle East TV news channels are translated into English and rebroadcast. You could learn a lot about our world if your worldview wasn't staight-up spin from the propaganda generators we get from cable. For instance, you could learn that W doesn't want the Saudis to increase oil production in this time of need, thereby decreasing supply and driving up prices, among other tidbits. And let's not forget that W comes from a very oil-rich and oil-freindly family.
BTW: There are many other channels on satellite TV you won't get from cable. Not since Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine in the 80's, anyway. Since then the media can slant anything they broadcast to suit their shareholder's bottom lines.