jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (30 posts)

Obama gas price investigation: winning back votes, or real concern?

  1. Daniel Carter profile image90
    Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago

    What do you think?
    Is he trying to win votes and percentage points for appeasing very disgruntled US consumers, or do you think he is legitimately concerned that there is price fixing and gouging?

    Here are articles:
    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/ga … ation.html

    http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011 … and-demand

    1. KFlippin profile image59
      KFlippinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is entirely political posturing.

  2. Aya Katz profile image88
    Aya Katzposted 5 years ago

    It's not the president's job to meddle with the market price of anything.

    If he hopes to change the price by intervening, then it's more of the same slide down into a totalitarian state...

    1. Daniel Carter profile image90
      Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, but his investigation is supposed to be about insuring no price gouging or fixing. I don't see that as meddling if it's actually going on. And I think in some cases it has been, or is at present. Several states are looking into this as well.

      I think, though, that he's appeasing a lot of consumers who have some very wild conspiracy theories, and I think it's an effort to try to win back some percentage points in the polls. In the end, it may prove nothing, except become another government expense paid for by tax payers.

    2. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He's in a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't situation though isn't he?

      Whether or not it is true he is being blamed for high gas prices, his hands are tied, he has to intervene whether it's his place to or not.

      1. Daniel Carter profile image90
        Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No actually, he can't legally intervene without introducing new legislation to do so. He can only investigate, which is supposedly what he is doing.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this



          Intervene, investigate, don't let's split hairs.

          1. Daniel Carter profile image90
            Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, I see your point.
            wink

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol

  3. BillyDRitchie profile image60
    BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago

    True, the President's hands are tied in a situation like this, and perhaps unfairly.....but if gas hits $5 or $6  a gallon, Obama will definitely be a one termer.

    I can appreciate Mr. Obama's wish for us to move into newer and more efficient forms of energy, but even if we made a paradigm shift tomorrow, we would have millions of combustion engine cars on our roads for at least the next two decades, so the desire for affordable gas will be a touchy issue for a long time to come...

    1. Aya Katz profile image88
      Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The millions of combustion engine cars might well be on the roads, but they won't be moving without gasoline. ;->

      1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
        BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Which is why I said, the need for oil isn't going away any time soon...

        1. Aya Katz profile image88
          Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If people can't afford to pay for oil, the need will go away very fast.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A viable candidate would have to be put in by the Republicans no matter the situation.

      They have none.

      1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
        BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They will.  Ideally they will have a solid platform to run on and a unified vision, but at the end of the day all they really have to do is run on Obama's record....

        But given the GOP's penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory....I'm not optimistic yet....

        1. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
          I thought that was the purvue of the Democrats!!! lol

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What about Donald Trump and Michelle Bachman? Trump would get the Birther vote and Michell the rest of the GOP nutjobs.

  4. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    It's a political stunt.  Nothing will come from it but wasted time and money.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I disagree.  If the market is being manipulated, then legislation to prevent gouging can be introduced.

      My understanding is that in times of unrest or perceived shortages, speculators trade the price up. I seem to recall that the same barrel of oil may change hands hundreds of times (on paper) before it is released to the market.

      This is not business - it's opportunistic gouging.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Legislation can be introduced?  Then what?  Passed by the house of Koch...er, I mean the U.S. house of representatives?

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Right. Only the Senate would let such legislation out of committee. But it becomes a campaign theme that the democrats were trying to do something about gouging. Obama can campaign that he supported it. Republicans can take the blame for high gas. prices.

          I think the House is in play in 2012. If gridlock is inevitable, let's make it identify who the republicans work for by what they obstruct.

          1. 69
            logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It's a matter of perspective, isn't it?  The Republicans think the Democrats in the Senate and the President are the obstructionists.
            What kind of facts can you present to prove the Republicans are responsible for high gas prices?
            I will guarantee you that Obama's investigation will come up with 'no credible evidence' of price gouging, and that 'market forces' are responsible.  Believe it or not, he is in the pocket of big business.  They just happened to be Democrats.

          2. 69
            logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And lets do the same with the Democrats.
            Pretty funny that it was Bushs' fault the last time we had high gas prices, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, it is anyone but Obama's fault.  Hypocrisy is the Dem's middle name.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    We could all move to Dubai. The price of gas there is $.11 per gallon.

  6. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Every time in history that gas prices go up there is an investigation. And every investigation in history finds no problem long after prices have come down again. Course some are predicting prices are not coming down. They always do so far so if not would be first time.

  7. dutchman1951 profile image60
    dutchman1951posted 5 years ago

    He already has iformation available to the President that tells him all of what he stated he is looking for???????

    smoke and mirrors if you ask me...

  8. Moderndayslave profile image61
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    The "Enron loophole"
    The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 has received criticism for the so-called "Enron loophole," 7 U.S.C. ยง2(h)(3) and (g), which exempts most over-the-counter energy trades and trading on electronic energy commodity markets. The "loophole" was drafted by lobbyists for Enron working with senator Phil Gramm[3] seeking a deregulated atmosphere for their new experiment, "Enron On-line."[4]


    Anything to do with high oil prices ,,,Nah
    They play we pay

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Of course.....but it's Obama's fault.

      Snakes.

  9. Moderndayslave profile image61
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    Oil is traded in US dollars and Uncle Ben is not helping.
       

    The Oil Shocks of the 70s

       


    The "common wisdom" is that Jimmy Carter was to blame for the gas crises in the 70s. Many use them as examples that Democrats can't be trusted on economic issues. But it's not that simple. Jimmy Carter got a bad rap!

    There were two "oil shocks" in the 70s.

    The first was the increase in the price in the fall of 1973. This was a result of Nixon devaluing the dollar and abandoning the gold

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well damm!
      Just like he got a bad rap about those hostages!
      October Surprise baby..these Rethugs will do ANYTHING to get in power.
      And nothing's changed.

      Hey--it was Carter too, who put solar panels on the White House.
      Reagan took them down. Why? Cause he was tied to Big Oil/Big Money.

      Hello Tea-Party (stolen version): Big Oil/Big Money to the Max.

      Feudal OverLords really. Yuk.

 
working