Are the American People STUPID?
By debrakcarey
@debrakcarey (19887)
United States
March 16, 2012 1:38pm CST
“The American people aren't stupid" said Obama on Feb. 23 while mocking the 'drill baby drill' of the GOP conservatives. The “only solution,” he said in this energy speech is that “we start using less. That will lower the demand, prices will come down. Yet, later he claimed that regardless of “how much oil we produce at home .?.?. that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide.”
So, which is it? drecreasing US demands will lower the price, or increasing US supply will not affect price? Either both do or neither does. Does Obama read his own speeches?
Astronomical amounts of U.S. wealth are sent overseas to pay for crude oil from the mideast, those countries most likely to be involved in turmoil or in cutting us off. Almost 60 percent of our trade deficit — $332 billion out of $560 billion — is shipped overseas to buy crude. Why not keep it here? It is like saying no to Canada's oil, and promising to buy oil from a South American country. Maybe we are stupid, we elected this man. Obama loaned 2 billion, with a B to a company in Brazil so they could develope their offshore oil reserves and then promised to be their best customer! Is drilling in Brazil, the home of the largest rain forest in the world, just as ecologically bad as drilling here? Or are the eco police not concerned with that?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html
And then there is algea. Grow it and use it as fuel. Pond scum in your fuel tank.
Another $14 million of taxpayer money will be sprinkled on algae research by Steven Chu’s Energy Department. You know, the guy in Obama's White House who says we ought to be paying higher gas prices than Europe cause then we will HAVE TO find alternatives to carbon based fuel.
Obama is slick, he's making this all sound so reasonable.
1 person likes this
10 responses
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
17 Mar 12
Obama is correct on both fronts. If YOU use less, than it will effect your budget less (this is so simple even a REPUBLICAN can figure that out!!). And, if we produce more oil here in the US it isn't going to put a dent in the overall price because supply isn't what is effecting the price of gas. Oil ISN'T trade on a supply and demand bias most of the time, it usually is traded on a FEAR, and SPECULATION bias. On Thursday there was word that the SPR would be tapped and the price of oil only went down a little bit.
To all of you drill baby drill people I have one question for you: Why would you want to take a resource out of OUR ground only to receive a SMALL increase in taxes, royalties for the land owner, and to see that oil shipped to CHINA????? We export over a million drums of oil a day, there is NOTHING to say that the oil that we get of our land HAS to be used here, and the oil companies would NEVER sign any agreement to do that. Why do you think there are so many wells here in the US that oil companies don't use? Because it doesn't make economic sense to run them!!!!
What you don't understand about oil is that it is much cheaper to drill in the middle east, than here in the US. So, in order to get more oil from the US you need the price to be higher so that the companies will drill more. That is why you get these large drops in oil like what happened in late 2008 early 2009. Once the price gets up there the oil companies can drill everywhere and still make money. The creates a huge glut of oil and when the price gets higher we use less which creates a bubble.
Steven Chu's correct that we as a country need to use less oil, and find more efficient ways to run our lives. The problem is that we should also eat better, get more exercise, and take better care of our selves, and the vast majority of us aren't doing that either. So you can take that with a grain of salt!!
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
17 Mar 12
By the way, all of your right wingers want to attack the president because he is so interested in Alge as a fuel. I mean who in their right mind would through hundreds of millions of dollars into developing Alge as a Fuel?
The largest company in the world: EXXON MOBIL!!!!!
http://businessfacilities.com/news/exxon-mobil-investing-600-million-in-algae-based-biofuels/
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
17 Mar 12
Sierras, If I personally buy a more fuel efficient car, and drive the same exact amount I will use less gas, thus saving me money, and helping the country by using less oil. If I buy a wind Turbine for my house I can produce enough energy to run my house with no need or electricity, thus saving me money, and using less energy. I could even put up more some solar panels, that would do the same thing. There are many alternatives to what we are doing now, but I really don't understand why people want to continue the status quo?
Actually, Obama is more in the pocket of the big oil companies than the environmentalist. Who do you think blocked that Keystone pipeline deal? Obama had the unions supporting this 100%, but they can't compete with big oil money. Why would big oil want to stop this deal? When you control supply, demand doesn't really matter. If increase supply it is much harder to control the message, and prices go down. That is the first lesson of oil: Control EVERYTHING!!!!
Obama is correct to say all of the above because you are correct that no green energy is going to get us off of oil. But, a combination could put a dent into our over all usage, and help us find an alternative to oil. Until then we are going to need oil, and I know it hurts republicans to say that he is actually increasing oil drilling, but it is a fact.
How many "Bridges to Nowhere" have the American people supported in the last 50 years? More than you or me could name in our lifetime!!! I am all for the government helping companies develop new technologies, and alternatives to oil. I agree that we need to be more selective of these companies, but I don't think we should stop funding alternatives.
@crossbones27 (49432)
• Mojave, California
18 Mar 12
Plus if government doesn't fund a way to find better alternative energy, who is? Is it going to be the private sector? Didn't I hear something about how the private sector was going to help the automobile industry too, when they were on the verge of collapse? For some strange reason the government was the one that bailed them out. I wonder why that was? I am glad to see Exxon looking into other ways though.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
16 Mar 12
Why are the American people stupid? The government dumbs down education, the progressive left has taken over the colleges and our news media is owned by Geo. Soros, a radical. The White House is in collusion with the main stream media to keep us uninformed and wants to control the free expression of views and news on the internet.
It takes guts now a days to find out the truth and speak it. So, yes. I partially agree with you. I just see that it lays at the feet of the left that the American people don't know what to think or believe.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
17 Mar 12
Deb, those of us that are stupid CHOOSE TO BE!!! No one makes us be here, no one makes us think the way we think, we all choose to do that. Those of us on here for the most part spend time on political sites, or watching news programs that we like. The VAST majority of the population isn't like us, they don't care as long as you maintain the Status Quo.
It doesn't take guts to do this, it just takes beliefs, and the thought that you are correct.
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
18 Mar 12
You're partly right, some choose to be stupid. My family thinks I've lost my mind. I'm either at school, at work, or in front of the monitor or tv watching the news, or reading a book about politics, philosophy or history.
But that's me. And for me it does take guts. It's really not my nature to disagree and argue. Believe it or not. lol I went to parochial school, nice girls keep quiet, you know. But I learned to speak up somehow.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
17 Mar 12
During the last spike in gas prices President Bush approved more drilling permits and what we are seeing now with increased domestic production is a direct result of that. The funny thing is President Obama appears to be taking credit for it and it sounds like it was his idea. Remember he would like to see European gas prices here in the US and to raise the tax would not go so he is doing it by other means. Federal tax on gasoline is $0.184 per gallon, add to that the state tax Average of $0.286 per gallon.
The US and state governments make almost as much as the oil companies between the sale of leases, royalties on crude oil and the gas tax and the diesel tax and the corporate income tax and the tax on dividends gives the government a hugh chunk of money every year and they are not taking any risk.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
17 Mar 12
He also blamed Bush for high gas prices then, guess what they were? Under $2.00 a gallon!
People forget.
This is Obama's agenda, and his energy secretary even said it and was made to recant before congress (for the campaign) We need gas prices to be as high as Europe's!
I've seen clips of interviews where he admits it's because he wants us to look to other fuels, not petroleum.
1 person likes this
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
20 Mar 12
Well, simply said..if he is so pro clean energy, solar and "alternative energies"...why is he being chauferred around town in a gas guzzing, low mileage, bullet proof HUMMER!! Why doesn't he have a Volt bullet proofed and be chauferred around in that! IT is alternative energy, high mileage, low fuel...all is is preaching for us to do..... He is nothing but a "do as I say, not as I do" person.
1 person likes this
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
27 Mar 12
Bullet proof the Volt...bullet proof is bullet proof...only diff is the make (and thereby the cost) of what is being bullet proofed!
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
23 Mar 12
People who support him will say because he is the president he needs the security. I would agree with that, even though I do not support his reelection. No one wants him to be hurt or worse.
But I bet his promise to buy a volt after he's out of office will be broken like all of the promises he's made since 2008. lol
@lampar (7584)
• United States
21 Mar 12
The assumption put forth by the politician is that if the oil major can produce 'hydro-carbon' locally, then the price of gasoline in domestic gas station will be lower is hypothetically feasible only in a world where there is no global trade and competition between nations. In a real market driven world, company will try to sell their product; as in this case - hydrocarbon to the higher bidder/ refiner. It won't make much of a different whether the crude oil is produced in Texas, Canada, or Saudi Arabia by Exxon or BP. The formula for the oil price determination in the market is a lot more complex than just where the crude oil is explored and produce, politician who claim that if oil produce locally, then automatically the price at the gas station will come down is only good for the campaign trail political rhetoric, not in a face of reality. Base on the claims by the politician, obviously If BP can produce oil in British Isle, or Exxon can find oil deep down in Texas, they are going to give discount to the U.S refiners or just lower their gasoline selling price to the cheapestway, or way below global market price for the sake of the consumers, it is just too simplistic in the eye of the politician. As you know, scenario like this can only happen in your wildest dream at night time.
Many time i can only smile whenever i heard about politician talk about how cheap the gasoline price is going to be locally if oil major are given free hand to explore every inches of the land and sea across the country without regulation and condition imposed; that is the most enjoyable moment during my entire day.
@lampar (7584)
• United States
21 Mar 12
Every thinking mind understand that after the billion dollar bail out of the big three car makers, the umber of cars that are powered by engines fuel with gasoline are several fold increased on our highway and street since then. So how in the world can the demand for gasoline can be lower domestically, when more people are driving with all the additional cars produced by GM. Even if a few extra thousand barrel of crude oil can be tapped locally through 'drill baby drill' conservative slogan, the supply is still way too low to meet the steep rising local and global demand to effect lower prices in the gas pump, let alone can alter the oil tycoon' appetite on huge profit margin in their business transaction. Assumption made by Obama is just too simplistic and unrealistic in the actual real world scenario, it is only good for text book theoratical presentation and pap rally talks.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
23 Mar 12
The president and his energy secretary WANT to drive prices up; they both said so. They are trying to DECREASE demand for hydrocarbon fuels, they've both admitted that too. But he's in reelection mode, he knows that won't go over good with the American public, so he plays this silly game trying to convince the voters that he is trying to reduce the price of gas.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
23 Mar 12
I didn't mention that when Bush was president, and Obama was campaigning the first time back in 2008, he told us that is WAS Bush's fault (the GOP) for allowing prices to get that high. lol
He doesn't want to be judged by his own words.
@kingparker (9673)
• United States
17 Mar 12
We are experiencing high energy cost right now, at this before summer time. The price just steadily going up, and the only solution, as advised by our government and all other smart experts, change a fuel - efficient vehicle. But we can't afford it now, so what is the better solution here? I don't know whether Obama is slick or he is stupid, I just concern about when we reached the summer time, the gasoline price will be more than $5 per gallon.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
18 Mar 12
There is nothing wrong with finding alternatives. We do need to find a way to wean ourselves off oil. BUT, let the free market find the way here, lower taxes and give people some incentive to invest and invent. Quit picking the winners who wind up going bankrupt and wasting the tax payers money.
I've already listed the ways we could become less dependent on foreign oil, but that would be way to easy and might make sense.
Are you American? Where do you live? What price is gas where you are?
@owlwings (43910)
• Cambridge, England
16 Mar 12
No, Americans are as smart as anyone else, basically (I am talking about individuals).
As a country (or collectively) the rest of the world sees Americans as being somewhat naive, obsessed with or convinced of their own 'supremacy' and actually very ignorant about the 'rest of the world' (the MANY jokes made about Americans believing that 'Europe' or 'Paris' is a small town in Kansas - or wherever - are rather too close to the truth to be ignored) .
You (I don't mean 'you' personally, of course) are too much led by your media and by your belief that America is the bravest and best country in the world and stands for everything that is 'good' in the world.
When he was first elected, we thought that Obama was going to be someone who would bring America into 'the rest of the world'. To a certain extent, he was ... (though he is actually rather gauche and proved that he doesn't really understand how to relate to other people at all). It is a bit of an embarrassment, to be honest, that he was awarded that Nobel prize. None of us really understand it and it must, inevitably, reflect on the whole 'Nobel Peace Prize' system. Don't get me wrong: Obama (and his wife) is OK but he's not really someone you want to represent your country, is he? He's a nice enough guy but is really rather ordinary and doesn't have the 'oomph' to get his moderately good ideas (from the rest of the world's point of view) across.
Well, it's perhaps not entirely his fault. He was elected (by Americans) as the 'head' of a system which is really reactionary. It really does appear to us (as 'the rest of the world') that America is actually ruled by corporations, large businesses with money and also by some very small and reactionary groups which have far more influence than they ought to have.
The 'rest of the world' sees the prices that YOU pay for the gas in your tanks as VASTLY under-taxed (under-priced). Most of us pay twice or three times the amount per gallon (there are people who pay less, but they tend to be countries who produce the oil and don't need to buy it).
Fossil fuel WILL run out ... or it will become too expensive to extract or to buy. Oil is simply 'fossilised algae', so what is so wrong with 'scum in your tank'? It doesn't really matter whether we rely on a million years or so of 'natural processes' to turn it into oil or whether we can learn to turn algae into oil in a year. If it requires investment and research, then (as long as it's controlled and responsible) that is what's essential. If you don't like to spend money on research and development of renewable resources, then you have to accept that it will never become any cheaper to drive your car to the market or top heat your home or to log on to the Internet.
The sooner America realises that they are actually only quite a small part of this world, the more they will be respected and the less people will see them as the humorous, strutting, adolescent cockscombs which they too often earn the reputation of being by their actions and words.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
17 Mar 12
However, there are problems with every renewable energy source that is currently available. None of them are truly efficient. Each of them have problems when it comes down to the environmental costs. Not every renewable source will work in every city, home, community, state, etc.
Solar power is great as long as you don't actually make the highly toxic solar cells or store the energy in even more toxic batteries. You also need a State that actually sees a decent amount of sunlight such as Florida. In Washington where it rains the majority of the time, it is a dud. It also needs a lot of real estate if it is going to be effective at powering more than one home.
Wind power is also a hazard to birds and the American Eagle. Again, you need a constantly windy area, a lot of real estate, and highly toxic storage batteries.
Hydroelectric power needs water and dams. It also can damage fish populations and flood areas that were never underwater.
Coal is pretty obvious about the hazards. However, it is probably one of the cheapest sources.
Natural gas has its own hazards. Mainly, fire danger and chance of explosions. Plus, not every State has equal access to it.
Nuclear power has hazardous waste issues which occur throughout the entire life of the plant. Plus, what do you do with all of those expended cores. California recently shut down one due to a degradation of recently installed tubes. It is also extremely dangerous to mine the material for. It is also the worst energy source when it comes to a disaster since areas affected can be rendered unlivable for years.
It is not up to the President to choose which renewable source should get the most funding because the truth is that none of them can do what oil does. He is basically throwing taxpayer dollars on companies that have no solid business plan. The market is ripe for something to replace oil. But it is NOT up to the President to pick what will work and what won't.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
17 Mar 12
I'm all for research to find a renewable resource or resources. Just leave out the government and let the American business man at it. In the meantime, use what we have. If the government stayed out of it, if they quit regulating the cr@p out of businesses and lower the capital gains tax so it would motivate them to find the answer, it would happen.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
20 Mar 12
So, who did I offend?
Notified responses were deleted due to flaming.
Good grief.
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
23 Mar 12
I think a big part is...nobody has to use their brains anymore. We dont' have eto think anymore. Everything is done for us. We dont' have to use our imagenations as with TV...it's all done for us. But when it was just radio...you could listen to a story and imagen how it is all going etc.
Hand held devices these days...does anyone read a book anymore? Play a board game? Write a letter? Only thing you need these days to play a game is your thumbs, press a button, scroll down.
Even a car will remind you or tell you what to do and even parallel park for you!
Education is all about "politically correctness". Here they are teaching about "the birds and the bees" in first grade...but kids are graduating high school with not much more than an 8th grade education.
If you dont use it...you loose it. Don't use your brain and thought process...you will loose your ability to do things. And when you loose your brain...all talents go down the drain. But..these days..no one has to think much. Cash registers make change so we dont' add or subtract. Good grief....we don't even have to open the door ourselves when entering a store!!!
I think people are being taught to be stupid these days. That is the way the government likes it. That way they can do what they want to do and no one will fight it.
@crossbones27 (49432)
• Mojave, California
17 Mar 12
I think people are stupid who vote against their own interests. I think the reason so many people vote against their own interest is because they lie to themselves. If you can't be honest with yourself, how do you ever expect to improve your life.
As far as this oil problem, this is they way they have done it for decades. It not just Obama. Even if we tapped every resource on land and in the ocean we would not have enough oil for ourselves. Plus the price would not go down that much, its because the system is rigged and their is no energy that can really compete with oil right now. Then you have all the fat cats sitting on Wall Street betting on high oil prices for the future so they can get paid at the expense of the average working American. If people would only direct their anger in the right way at the right people or groups. We might be able to fix some of these problems and keep future problems like this from happening.
You have to remember this is all about money and that is all these people care about. That is how they stay in power and can force these bad policies that never seem to end that hurts the country overall. Yet they get to live this glamorous life. Even when they do pass some good policies, they get made out to be bad by straight propaganda. Then if people in congress want to get elected or reelected they have to overturn these policies. It is just the cycle of this country and obviously no one wants these things to change. We say we do, but we are just a greedy society and no one wants to do anything that will conflict with their lifestyle. Hell, maybe we should just stop trying to change things let the rich and politicians have their way. Let the middle class all drop to being poor. The reason I say this is because if we get enough poor people who have nothing to loose, then maybe the American people will finally fight back.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
17 Mar 12
they'd be slaughtered. Liberal tolerance, what there is of it, would fly out the door and it would be a blood bath.
While I believe in capitalism and a free market, I do agree that American corporations can use some real good PR, and some have only money at heart.
but what do people expect, when you throw out God's law and say everything is relative for the last two or three generations.