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

1. 68

   Daniel Carterposted 14 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

   replyreport
   1. 59

      KFlippinposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It is entirely political posturing.

      replyreport
2. 83

   Aya Katzposted 14 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...

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Daniel Carterposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      John Holdenposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         Daniel Carterposted 14 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

            replyreport
            1. 68

               Daniel Carterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, I see your point.
               

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
3. 60

   BillyDRitchieposted 14 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...

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Aya Katzposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 60

         BillyDRitchieposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Aya Katzposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

            replyreport
   2. 61

      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      A viable candidate would have to be put in by the Republicans no matter the situation.
      
      They have none.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         BillyDRitchieposted 14 years agoin 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....

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Mighty Momposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

            replyreport
      2. 73

         Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
4. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               logic,commonsenseposted 14 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
            2. 58

               logic,commonsenseposted 14 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
5. 75

   Mighty Momposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
6. 60

   knolyourselfposted 14 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.

   replyreport
7. 59

   dutchman1951posted 14 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...

   replyreport
8. 61

   Moderndayslaveposted 14 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. §2(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

   replyreport
   1. 86

      lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
9. 61

   Moderndayslaveposted 14 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

   replyreport
   1. 86

      lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport