Newt promise that bread will be .50 a loaf and eggs .05 each, and chickens $1.00 each heck, I won't even bother with seafood or beef!

Point on once again !

Newt is nothing but a big fat liar. Have him point to one, just one, instance of a president controlling gas prices. It can't be done.

Newt's secret to 2.50 gas is downsizing the volume (2.50 per quart) not unlike all the other products we buy.

This guy always reminds me of something that stuck to the sole of my shoe.

Newt - the ONLY thing you are is a certified bull@!$%# artist & adulterer!

Feisty, you hit the nail right on the head!

but, but, but ... Michele Bachman promised us $2.00/gallon gas. Maybe Newt is going to make her his Energy Secretary.

Newt is such an infantile blowhard. Who ever thought this guy was smart? Crafty, egotistical, unrealistic, and oft proven wrong about his grand declarations. Remind me, what is smart about him? For a great moment of recall watch the PBS documentary on Clinton...lol. Newt is a buffoon and only gets more ridiculous by the hour. Trying to baffle the world with bs.

I do see insincerity on both sides of the isle when it comes to gas prices. Neither demonstrate any knowledge of ethical free market mechanics. I'm waiting for a candidate to pull their head out, take a fresh breath of air and propose a balanced approach. A balanced approach needs to address domestic production, increased fuel efficiency and alternative sources of energy. It's a three legged stool, and most of our politicians think we can always just balance on one leg.

The most tastey irony is from the Christian Taliban folks. If they bothered to read the entire bible, we were supposed to be stewards of the earth, not greedy consumers. They would also realize that the earth belongs to all generations not just the present. Why be so pro-life when you only get to hand off toxic waste dumps to your great grandchildren.

Yeah, I'm on Arizona time too, and Feisty is absolutely correct. Why so nasty?

Hard to believe that happens unless Newt borrows Christine O'Donnells' magic wand and obtains some eye of a newt to cook up additional petroleum reserves that currently do not exist in the US. Note that although the US has the largest known deposits of oil shale in the world, it doesn't actually contain oil and to date there has been no significant commercial production of oil from US oil shale ... but you keep going Newt; people that are listening to you aren't going to distracted by facts anyway.

Newt Gingrich seems to be coming unglued.

Uh Sam...hate to break this to you bud, but the reason the AAA rating went south was because the Rep House wouldn't increase the debt limit until the last second. Nice try though...well, not really.

A T-bone on every grill and an SUV in every garage. It's Party Time! We can always go green after most of the world's cities are under water.

Nothing Newt says or does matters. Nothing Newt has done or said matters. Newt is putting money in his pocket with each passing day He stays in this race. He has a rich, idiotic backer, along with a following of dim wits within the electorate, who will buy his numerous political tracts, books, films, etc. Newt is a marketer. I do not believe Newt actually believed He could become the Nominee when He first announced his candidacy. He did however, understand, with that kind of backing, he could pocket some real big bucks, and the longer He maintains that backing, the bigger the bucks He accumulates. Newt is a large "piece of crap" but not a stupid one. He knows who and where his adoring smaller pieces of crap are, and will never stop exploiting their stupidity, so long as He gains profit by the stirrings of that stupidity.Damn shame.

Gas was 89 cents before Bush Sr. took office, what's your point? No president has any real effect on gas prices, unless you are Chavez and subsidize gas prices.

Whoever promises to get beer down to $2.50 per six pack, I'll consider voting for them.

Next he will purport that HE will walk across the Strait of Hormuz to achieve this and feed the homeless with 1 loaf and a nice Chianti ...

@nobrent: if you have located that candidate, *PLEASE* identify him / her; because that is one campaign promise that will do it for me too :)

GingRICH - How and just how would you get gas to $2.50 a gallon? Wouldn't that go against your Republican ideals? Another pathetic commentary from GingRICH.

Newt is gassy.

Blingrich, NOBODY is listening to you anymore !!

.

jrschw......While those things would all be good for America and would help the balance of payments, they would not have any effect on gas prices. Oil is a global commodity, and gasoline to a lesser degree is a global product. Price will be controlled by world demand, not US demand, and speculation in the world markets will determine if prices go up or down.

You will never see $2.50 a gallon gas ever again, the oil companies have proved that a declining demand and increased supply in the US will not substantially reduce US gas prices, they export any excess to the highest bidder. We cut US demand, the US supply is healthy and the US price still goes up. No matter how much oil you might find, it is still a finite resource the whole world wants. Not to mention we don't burn crude in our cars, we burn gasoline which has to be refined. There is no incentive for the oil companies to spend the money to increase refining capacity to accommodate a glut of crude (if there was to be such a thing) just to lower the price of a gallon of gas, the only way they would make that investment would be to accommodate volume, US consumption is down so they have enough volume to sell it abroad which maintains the high price, they certainly won't build refineries just to lower the price, and they wont build them here to sell gas abroad. I bought my first gallon of gas for 29 cents a gallon, it has steadily risen over the years and never goes down except for minimal amounts and only for the short term. You will never see $2.50 a gallon gas ever again, unless Newt proposes to tell the oil companies they can only sell American oil in America and not on the world market, but then that is not free market capitalism. Free market capitalism means we will pay world prices for fuel no matter how much oil you may find in US territories. Newt might as well tell people he will bring back the nickel candy bar.

“We can be the largest oil producer in the world by the end of this decade.”

How EXACTLY can that be accomplished when we have only 2% of world reserves?

Regarding the Keystone Pipeline...why is it necessary to ship that oil sand crude all the way to the Gulf when there are perfectly good refineries in places like Washington, Montana, Minnesota, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah? http://www.energysupplylogistics.com/map/

It couldn't be that this is the best location to facilitate shipment of finished oil products out to other nations, could it? Yeah, it probably could in fact...after all, we're already a net EXPORTER of finished petroleum products.

The last posted national average price for gasoline was $3.67 - according to AAA. The last time gasoline was in that price range was 11 months ago. Gas prices were almost $4.00 a gallon 9 months ago.

http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/

The only way to reduce the impact of gas prices on the United States is to use less gasoline. Attempting to flood the market with oil (from new production) will not dramatically change gasoline prices - since - refining is the bottleneck. Low grade oil costs more to refine - so cheap oil does not translate to cheap gasoline.

Becoming the largest producer of low grade oil is not the answer. We do not burn oil in our cars - we burn gasoline.

he could be right .. Bachmann said it can be done ... we all know .. she was the smart one in the race

I want lower movie and popcorn prices too! Lower gas prices probably means more war debt in Newt terms. The debt will cancel the lower prices. 1 million dollar bomb per every 5,000 gallons.

Quite right, Grump.

In fact, the oil companies are about maintaining their profits - the spread between crude and refined gasoline - is entirely controlled by the refiners. From there the speculative pricing begins.

Notice that there is no shortage of people (Ron Paul supporters, most likely) at the ready to attack Obama but no one can answer the original question: How the hell is Gingrich gonna make gas $2.50 gallon? Let's say it was somehow possible. Would it not be reasonable to ask, Mr. Gingrich, being the "only" conservative free-marketeer candidate in the race, how would you go about reducing the price of gas without government intervention?

Gingrich (and the others, but mostly Gingrich) have established themselves as willing to concoct the most convoluted lies imaginable and nobody has the brains or balls to call them on it.

Does anyone out there REALLY think that Gingrich can make $2.50/gal gas? Then why does he say it? BECAUSE HE KNOWS YOU'RE STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE HIM!

Now you see why ever car manufacturer you have ever heard of and many you may not have will have one or more electric vehicles in their lineup. We can make all the electricity we want, wherever we want, in a variety of ways, we don't have to find it, we don't have to deal with foreign suppliers, and we don't have to worry about a dwindling supply, not if we don't want to, because we can generate all the electricity we care to. We have a smart president who is trying to steer us in that painfully obvious right direction, but all he gets is grief from republicans on that subject. Anybody can lead you where you want to go, it takes a real leader to take you where you need to go. We better address our Electrical Grid and build some electrical power plants because we are going to need those electrons, as hydrocarbons are going to get ever more expensive in the future. That Chevy Volt is looking better everyday, when it's a fifty dollar bill every time you fill up.

bassicdave, I agree it would require REGULATION of the oil companies to protect US gas prices, is Newt going to call for price controls on US gasoline producers, production quotas, limit their ability to sell their product abroad, or is he just going to ask them to pretty please sell gas at $2.50 a gallon.

No arguing that Newt Gingrich is full of cheap gas.

Gingrich: I'm the $2.50 gas president -- Yep you have about as much chance at being president Newt as I have finding gas for $2.50 a gallon.

Some more of Newt's promises:

I'll cure cancer

I'll build a million person moon base

I'll kill Osama bin Ladin.

I'll give everybody a new car

I'll re animate Hitler.

I'll make everybody rich

I'll make Sarah Palin sit up and bark like a dog

I'll make divorce as easy as brushing your teeth

I'll find the real killers.

I'll build a car that runs on flatulence.

I'll make my wife look human.

I'll prove that aliens seeded the earth.

I'll stop 9/11

I'll star in the NBA.

I'll only cheat on my wife one, or at the most three more times

I'll never tell another lie...

First, Newt needs to move the entire Republican party to his moon base. Then we can talk about how he would get gas prices to $2.50/gallon.

These candidates yelling "FIRE" in crowded theaters are getting old. Typical tactic by these Republican candidates. 2.50 a gallon=Newt; 10.00=Obama - Indeed, what a crock of crap. The same style of crap yelled by Santorum the other day claiming the Dutch commit involuntary euthanasia.

It is all meant to keep the masses running around in fear. Ignore these fear mongers, tune them out, turn them off, but make them accountable for everyone of their exaggerated BS statements. Obama doesn't participate in this tactic, and they wonder why he seems reasonable compared to these nut cases.

If he can turn the copious bile he churns out from his cud into gasoline, he might be on to something...

I did not make my point very clearly. Last year, gas prices reached the current price range in March - this year is one month early. The prices peaked in May, 2010, at close to $4.00. The last time gas prices were in this range was actually six months ago.

http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/

The Republicans are actually helping Obama with this issue. Blame Obama all you wish - historically gas prices fall after Labor Day. The more blame Obama gets for the higher prices now - the more credit he will receive for the lower prices close to the election.

Much higher oil prices also provide another incentive to relocate manufacturing back to the United States. Unfortunately, the Post Office is downsizing - so - government subsidized shipping is not as available. Coal is also a feedstock for plastics and chemicals - and - the United States has a clear advantage with coal. There are alternatives to petroleum - and - some of those alternatives are also fossil fuels.

BrianB:

I can't imagine why you would take anything these guys are saying on the campaign trail seriously. They are pandering to whoever they are speaking to about whatever will resonate. Today its gas prices, yesterday it was a moon base to a Florida audience.

That study you quoted is telling about 5% of the story about drilling in the gulf. Watch the Frontline documentary on what happened in the BP Gulf oil spill, and you won't be quoting an 8 year old study as proof that Newt Gingrich has a clue what he is talking about when he is blowing his campaigning horn. It isn't as simple as "hey, there is oil there! Grab the truck keys!" Is there oil there? Yes. Can we drill for it? Yep. On a mass scale? Not safely. And not quickly enough to respond to short term changes in gas prices. Newt Gingrich is an idiot.

Vote for me and gas will be free!

The U.S. has 2% of the world's oil supply and uses 20% of it go figure...get off the oil teat asap!

@bob-1805084 -- Gee - I think Wall Street and the banking industry had a much larger influence on oil prices. The peak was 3rd quarter of 2008. Oil prices were lowered by more than half in the 4th quarter of 2008.

http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm

There have been a lot of complaints about less oil production on Federal land - some data shows a 40% reduction in oil production on Federal lands. Be careful reading this stuff because these groups tend to include coal in the mix of resources. Caution - this link opens a PDF.

http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/API_Booklet_Jan_2012_v2-1.pdf

Here is an energy industry site, although it is a little dated.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=229180

Oil production from Federal lands has never been more than 10% of total production in the United States. The oil industry will stop production on Federal lands first because the royalty structure for production on Federal land is different than on private land. Basically stopping production on Federal land does not cost anything.

The arguments to increase production on Federal land do not take into account market factors - low oil prices makes some production unprofitable.

@talkingtoyou55 -- Actually, I believe the United States has 2% of proven reserves. There are a lot of WAGs about total oil available in the Unites States but proven reserves is what really counts. Most of the WAGs do not factor in the cost of producing the oil either. The amount of oil looks great but the economics means gas would need to cost much more than projected.

Just look at all the wealthy libs, including the Hollywood crowd. with all that money you'd think that they'd have come up with something other than making the government make sure that everyone is poorer.

witchrunner - why should the rich libs be responsible for figuring out your energy shortage problems?

I'm sure they will spam me and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about,

Ok, you don't know what you are talking about. You see, since the 70s, we have relied upon the good old capitalism route to develop alternative energy automobiles, but without strong government incentives to get the auto industry off their butts, they have done very little. There is absolutely no good reason that over 50% of the auto fleet isn't off gasoline. We were able to get a man to the moon in a few short simple years, but we can't manage to build a battery capable of powering a car over a 40 year period? Could it be the oil industry has squelched alternative fuel development?

There is absolutely no reason this country isn't energy independent, except for folks like you who insist there be an oil derrick on every street corner. Fortunately, we are turning the corner. The auto industry is beginning to build electric cars. Alternative fuels are finally being researched and produced. States like California and Nevada are erecting solar and wind stations, to utilize renewable energy sources. Putting solar panels on homes is becoming more common place.

And how all those efforts take away from your rights is beyond comprehension. If you want to drive a gas guzzler that gets 5 MPG, feel free to do so and enjoy your $5 a gallon gas for that privilege.

Michele Bachmann was promising $2/gallon gas if she became president. Now Newt Gingrich says the price will be $2.50/gallon. It looks like the GOP is not so much looking for the right nominee as they are looking for the right price for gasoline!

red dev: I never said the rich libs should be responsible for my energy. But, they have been preaching that there is a better way than good ol' fashion gasoline. Well, they can talk all they want, but they don't do anything about it. All they want to do is stop oil.

As for alternatives, no "we" have not relied on capitalism to develop alternatives, libs haven't been getting off their butts to do anything about it. "We" are quite happy with our SUVs and other vehicles. What we aren't happy with is libs and the government doing their best to make sure that they cost a heck of a lot more than they should. You might try reading up on a little history. If you did, you would find out that once upon a time this country's primary source of transportation was walking or the horse and buggy. I don't recall anyone screaming about waiting around for someone to invent something so they wouldn't have to deal with the horse and buggy. Henry Ford didn't wait around for government subsidies either. Is there a lesson to be learned here? Well, for most people it is obvious. But, for libs, that's a different story. The fact is that people are happy with the transportation that they have. They don't want to be forced out of it. That's not to say that if someone comes along with a better form of transportation that they are convinced will improve their lives that they won't change. But, you can bet that they don't want to be ordered to give up what they have for something that they don't see as an improvement. That's why I say that it is the libs who want the transportation system changed. All they have to do is put their money where their mouths are and come up with something. Do something unusual for libs: Compete! Come up with something better! The fact is that there is money to be made, but invest your own money just like everyone else who has made this country great. It really isn't that hard to understand.

The Republican race has turned into a side-show.

Oh come on. ANYONE could get gas down to $2.50! There's only two things you'd have to do...

1) Approve every drilling permit ever submitted. (This does NOTHING for prices, but sure puts Big Oil in a good mood)

2) Nationalize the oil industry. (But I didn't think guys like Newt liked that idea)

3) Provide direct gas subsidies by the fed. (again, not too popular with the GNOPS or anyone for that matter)

Otherwise, to infer that we can drill enough to even come close to affecting global gas prices is asinine. We are in a much better "independence" position today largely due to new horizontal drilling techniques but it hasn't budged any prices. Oil and Gas prices are based on free market forces and we are becoming a smaller percentage share of that market year over year.

We produce more, OPEC turns down their spicket without missing a beat.

Newt is just a real polished liar.

obama promises $10.00 a gallon gas and a free pair of electric sneakers for everyone.

witchrunner

Your paranoia with "libs" hurts your points more than it helps...

But what I THINK the point trying to be made is that market forces are working to hold oil and gas prices down and none of the alternatives can compete with it. Normally the reaction to that would be "so what? It is what it is!" And for most of the last century, that has been true and valid.

But now, with desires to become both energy independent AND to move away from carbon emissions, the only ideas that have surfaced are 1) the obvious: subsidize alternate energy development, and 2) attach taxes to carbon emissions such as with Cap and Trade to even out the playing field.

Without one or the other, above, it would be very high risk for anyone to go full tilt alternate energy.

We won't get to alternate energy sources in a real way without a push of some kind.

Good points Grump and LMarcT; if you believe in free market capitalism - and I"m going to go out on a limb here and say that is one thing that most of us can agree on - then it's going to mean doing a number of things counter to that concept to regulate multiple industries in draconion way just to have a minor effect on US pump prices. This is like playing poker and using a strategy of bidding up the pot when you have 2 chips and the rest of the table all have 80 - 100 ... and they know you're bluffing because they have all seen your cards.

I'm actually surprised by Newt's statements; he's intelligent and well-informed enough to know better. But he seems to banking on a lot of people who have not looked at this situation better and are too busy chanting "Drill, baby Drill!" to examine the real numbers.

lmarct: Good Morning!

Not sure what "paranoia" I've expressed about libs, but you do give a great example of why I don't like the politics of the libs. You, unlike most libs, at least recognize the benefits of the free market. But, then you do what libs do best and come up with a solution that government reliance can come up with. As for "desires," I'm not sure whose desires you are speaking of. You come up with 2 goals that are not mutually exclusive, but not necessarily compatible either. Your "solutions" to the problems sound like the thugs are on the warpath to control the world. And, you leave out the really obvious. Want to obtain energy independence? Allow more drilling, refining and other forms of energy without putting phony obstacles in the way. Drilling moratoriums and regulations that make it cost prohibitive to use coal and nuclear power have long been a problem We have all this energy available and all the politicians are doing is letting the rest of the world use theirs while we keep a clamp on ours. Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

As for your cap and tax idea, it has never been a good idea and is counter productive. First of all, it creates a phony commodity where one doesn't exist. Second, it addresses a problem that isn't really a problem. Third, it kills, or at least slows the economy way down. Don't believe me. Let's say you pay $30.00 for a pair of jeans. The government comes out and says that they don't want you to wear jeans, but want to you wear dress pants that sell for $100 a pair. So, to "encourage" you to buy the dress pants, they slap a $60 tax on the jeans. No the playing field is "even" as you say. Are you going to jump in and buy dress pants now? If you like jeans are you going to continue to buy jeans like you used to? Of course not. Unless you are wealthy enough that this kind of increase doesn't affect your lifestyle you aren't going to buy either all that frequently. So, you've just put a bunch of people out of work and made people do without and a lot poorer, all towards what end?
You don't think just upping the price of gas is going to hurt anyone? Think again.

How about a better solution. Let's get rid of the phony barriers to producing our energy. That will keep prices down and the economy going. Then, rather than putting a gun to the heads of every American to pay more for energy, just let those who are willing to pay more for alternative energy do so. This makes us energy independent and allows those who are concerned with carbon emissions to address those concerns. A definite win-win solution. And, no one has to force anyone to do anything! No government involvement, just the free market system solving problems.

The increased oil production from the US in the last year has not lowered the price of gasoline. It has only turned the US into a net exporter of oil for the last time in a couple of decades or so. Gingrich's proposal to lower U.S. prices by increasing US oil production does not work in the global market.

Extracted oil belongs to the oil company to sell wherever in the globe they wish to - presumably to wherever it fetches the best net income (sale price less cost of transportation).

All that "Drill, Baby, Drill" does, is ensure that the US will have less and less oil to be extracted as it's price gets higher and higher. Whatever revenue the US does derive from oil production will simply be obtained under near-term prices rather than under the higher prices of a future supply that becomes costlier and costlier to extract.

@ witchrunner:

How about a better solution. Let's get rid of the phony barriers to producing our energy.

Are you talking about getting rid of the billions tax payers give to oil companies?

http://askville.amazon.com/explain-subsidy-oil-producing-firms/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=182382

http://www.cleanupwashington.org/fightcorruption/page.cfm?pageid=9

Jack Colton - I take NO politician seriously. Everytime a politican speaks, my hair blows back and I have to squint my eyes because of the blast of hot air that envelops my face. I don't care what denomination the politician is either or his rank. Some of them are masters at blowing hot air and some of them just plain stink, but all of them do it.

How come no one's mentioned yet that the Republicon's deregulation of the oil industry in 2000 is what caused the first big spike right after Dubya Shrub took office? Does no one remember their history? All this started right around the time that he tried to bribe the American public with those $600 Government Checks. If that wasn't welfare, pandering, and political payoff, what was?

He then proceeded, with the help of his buddies Ken Lay, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and others, to gut the United States, and hand over the goodies to the uber-rich. That's why we went from having the largest surplus in history to having the biggest deficits in history, within his first term in office. Yet another side effect of all this is, the gap between the middle class and the wealthy is the largest it has been since 1928.

Here's another tidbit for you: The average salary for a CEO in the United States has grown some 298.2%, and corporate profits by 106.7%, the average worker pay has only risen by 4.3% since 2000. The average CEO in the United States makes 821 times more than minimum wage.

Come on right-wing neocon people, it's not hard for you to check facts. It's called research.

Then again, if you get your information from Faux News, there's no excuse. You just want to be willfully ignorant. The Greed Only Party is sucking the life and vitality out of the United States in the name of the almighty dollar.

And don't bother to try that sad, tired old "He's a SOCIALIST!" crap. It is a lie, it's anti-American, and you ought to be tried for treason for saying it.

Here's one chart that ought to open some eyes:

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_1.png

How can the Republicon party claim to love America when they clearly hate the average American?

Nationalized the oil industry. That will get prices down over night 35%. Eliminate profits and marketing is where the savings come from, do they really think if they stop marketing people will stop buying gas. The taxpayer sells its oil to the oil company, they refine and market it and sell it back to the taxpayer.

Heck, Newt, why not just promise the American public that you'll make gas free!? That is every bit as realistic as a $2.50 a gallon campaign promise.

Excellent comment on what really drives gas prices, Forrest Grump.

We are all aware, are we not, that Big Oil has the Republican party in its pocket?

Dick, that's the real answer to the issue of gas prices...but any politician who dared suggest it would be tarred and feathered and branded a Socialist!! *shudder*

Witch,

We all like things cheap, but we also like to prepare for the future. You save for retirement don't you? You save for your kid's college? "WE" also save for the future by investing in the future--be that alternatives to fossil fuels, or the internet. Government does that stuff to ALL of our benefit. I'd be angry if they didn't. Everything cannot be invented or fixed by the private sector. The private sector screws up. It doesn't always think far enough in the future. Our government--which represents 'we the people'-- sometimes fills that gap. What's wrong with that? Eastman Kodak, right here in my hometown just went Chaper 11. They've been making film for more than 100 years. I'm sure they were aware of digital photography. They made the cameras! What did they do?--to their peril--they ignored it. The world WILL coninute to deplete fossil fuels and prices WILL go up. What do we do? Ignore it? Markets won't repond until the last minute, and they will take advantage of short supply--they do that now. That's why fuel spikes. Do we as a country sit here and ignore what we KNOW is coming, or do we 'save a little for retirement' or 'invest in college savings' to avert these problems for our kids, grandkids, and other fellow Americans? Seem like aprtty obvious answer.

Hey it's Meee - Just you wait a minute now! I was thinking about starting an oil company so I could cash in on all the government money... don't go blowing it for me by having the government stop those payouts. I want my share of the BILLIONS we give them....

Hey wait Brian, I had you as a conservative/ You don't support oil companies?

Further for Witch... Some of those country-killing "lib" ideas include quite a few things you probably enjoy....like a 40 hour workweek, seatbelts and airbags, clean air and water laws, credit card rules on interest rates....I could go on but suffice to say there are a LOT of things that the "libs" came up with that "cons" fought....like democracy itself. /snicker/

hey its me: Please explain what you mean by the taxpayers giving billions to the oil companies. How so? Did the treasury really write checks to the oil companies? I read the articles and was unable to determine what happened. Sorry, but the term "subsidies" is rather nebulous and is designed to incite rather than inform. So, what happened? Just want to know.

As for the part of the article that said that nothing was done to address the energy problem, that is probably true. Since the 1970s we've had restrictions on oil production and refining as well as on other forms of energy.

Tess: other than ranting, it's difficult to figure out what you are trying to say. Socialist? Against freedom? Anti-American? Ignorant? Purposely destroying America? Not sure what label is the most appropriate, but the fact is that Obama is a miserable failure in terms of fostering prosperity in America. I won't say he's a failure completely. I do believe that he and his supporters think he is a great success. The problem is how one defines "success." Making everyone "equal" is not my idea of success. Growing the government and taking away freedoms is not my idea of success. Making me buy something that I don't want to buy is not my idea of success. Driving up the price of fuel and restricting production of fuel is not my idea of success. High unemployment is not my idea of success. Taking money from those who make it and giving it to those who don't is not my idea of success. Taking Mommy packed school lunches out of the hands of 4 year olds and telling the kids that Mommy is a bad Mommy and that the government can better take care of you is not my idea of success. The list goes on and on. How about bankrupting the Social Security system faster so Grandma and Grandpa will not be taken care of because determining that it is better to buy votes for $40 to $80 a month is not my idea of success. Increasing the deficit so that we are spending more and more of taxpayers' money on interest payments is not my idea of success. Yet, all this is going on and you are concerned about Obama being labeled a "Socialist!"

witchrunner - you are arguing two completely different industries, that of energy production and that of automobile production, (two of the most powerful industries world wide) and that the rich libs are suppose to magically unseat those industries and develop new energies and products to replace our current paradigm. Sorry, but the power/influence and wealth of the rich libs doesn't come close to the resources of those industries, thus competition isn't a viable solution.

Knowing that, what the rich libs have done is push for regulation changes that force the hands of those industries into producing alternatives required to both reduce reliance on foreign oil, and reduce polluting emissions.

You seem mostly focused on automobiles, so let's look at regulations on that industry that reduce emissions. California passed the most stringent pollution laws on the automobile industry, and the result is air quality that surpasses air quality in the '50s-70s, despite almost doubling the number of automobiles on the road. You can actually see oceans and mountains most of the year. Prior to that, it was rare. You can actually go outside and breath and you don't have to wipe the film of smog off your skin. Contrary to your argument that rich libs are lazy, this happened as a direct result of consumers activism, with the assistance of monetary help from the rich libs. If it was left up to the approach you suggest, Californians would be wearing gas masks and hazmat suits. In exchange for buying gas masks and hazmat suits, Californians do pay more for automobiles that pollute less. I'd say that is a worthwhile exchange.

While you may think you are free to pollute to your heart's content, you are not. You share the environment with others. Incidentally, driving an automobile is not a right, it is a privilege, and one that you have to pay for.

witchrunner,

Good morning! We agree more than not. I don't care for any of the "ideas" I mentioned, I only listed them because they were out there. I think our biggest difference is that I'm not convinced at all that an unfettered oil industry... drill, drill, drill... is a solution at all. I'm not sure how the timing works out, but, yes, I do understand the positives to the economy.

Feeding an addict with cheaper drugs does nothing but deepen their addictions. Oil is the same. Making more of it locally only deepens our investment in IT and strengthens out dependence on IT (oil).

But if you believe that CO2 is not a problem, then letting "nature take it's course" doesn't sound too bad... but CO2 IS a problem and nature taking it's course is NOT an option... at least for any of us "tree hugging libs".

lmarct: Please take this in the spirit that is intended. CO2 problem? Why do you want to starve the trees? And you call yourself a tree hugger? Seems to me the conservatives are the tree huggers. :)

If Americans don't want to pay such high prices for gas, then stop using so much of it... America uses more oil buy size than any other country in the world... China and India are catching up fast... So the price will go up no matter what America does...

We need to get into more alternative energy supplies... No president can control the price at the pump... Carter didn't, Reagan didn't nor did Bush junior... None of them had the ability to control the cost of importing oil...

witchrunner

LOL. I guess if I was a tree, I would call it an O2 problem. Have a great day.

Careful Terry-Ca; you're making too much sense. The US does not have the reserves of pure crude oil to get into a protracted resource war with the other major suppliers. However; there is plenty of improvement to be made in efficiency in the internal combustion engine as well as alternative sources of energy for transportation. Improvements in those areas would lower our cost of goods and reduce the strategic dependence on petroleum in general.

Damn, it Newt. How the hell can you get gas to $2.50???? In case you haven't noticed, the price of oil is set by THREE things, not just supply and demand. The first is supply and demand, which makes a big part of the price. The second is speculators who determine the future price of oil. And the third is foreign events, namely Iran and OPEC. America can produce more oil, and I would support that, but that can only do so much. And oil production IS going up, very fast. Could it go higher?? Yes, but gas will never be below $3 unless the economy tanks AGAIN.

And Newt, you claim that the President's policies have been sending gas prices up. You have also been claiming that Obama is too soft on Iran. Well which is it??? The tensions with Iran are the main problem that is driving up gas prices. You say that you will cut gas prices WHILE attacking Iran, which could drive gas prices to perhaps $7 a gallon, even with increased production. The GOP is offering up irrational solutions to America's problems. They say that they will take a tougher stance with Iran (doubt that that is even possible without declaring war or hostilities) WHILE keeping gas at $2.50, which won't work because oil is a GLOBAL market. The ONLY way we could significantly lower the price of gas without stopping the sanctions with Iran is to quadruple domestic oil production, built at least 40 or 50 oil refineries, and open up several dozen new pipelines and oil areas in a matter of MONTHS. Sound impossible??? For rationalists yes; for the GOP, no.

Okay Newt, you slick bastard, you claim to be smart with your historian knowledge. But your stupidity insults the entire history-buff community, including me. Oil will NEVER be $2.50 a gallon, unless we decide to turn the entire state of Alaska into crude. And to say that Obama is anti-energy is ridiculous. He has invested billions in clean energy to wean us off fossil fuels, has worked hard to increase fuel-efficiency, and has endorsed fuel-efficient vehicles. He has done a lot to fix energy policy, and that is much better than what you and your right-wing posse can bring to the table.

NEWT GINGRICH=INCOMPETENT FOOL

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Brianb-999431 .... I am amazed that Brian's post was collapsed. It just goes to show that some people on this site can not deal with anyone that gives a logical alternate view on the situation.

gas was $1.86 when you Messiah took office

So what? You R-tars need a history lesson and you are not likely to get an accurate one from Newt. It was during the Bush recession when Obama took office, worldwide oil demand was way down. Before the recession there was a time during the Bush administration when it was higher than it is now. It is just back up where it was but this time the demand for oil from China, India and the American consumer is even higher than it was during peak prices of the Bush years and now too you've got Iranian oil being cut off. Y'all are lucky it ain't hittin' $6/gal right now.

If Presidents could control the price of gas, I'm sure Obama would have done so long ago...imagine the boost that would give his run for re-election. I'm for investigating speculation and what and how it influences gas prices. I smell the Koch Bros. in this.

I've always thought it's curious that the price per gallon is posted on a marquee...subject to change at any given time. I've also wondered why gas never goes on sale.

To Arizonatime you are the most ignorant arse wipe who posted in this thread.

Absolutely, Newter has his own unlimited supply of cheap gas. If only we could figure out a way to bottle it.

To be fair, the "Unmentionable One" got gasoline prices down to $2.50 a gallon by the end of his second term. Unfortunately he had to destroy the economy of the Western world to achieve this.

Remember supply and demand? Global recession = lowered demand.

Hope Newter does not deliver on his promise.

LoyalTexan,

The way to tap Newt's unlimited gas supply is to insert one pipe into his anal cavity and one into his bocal cavity (pie hole).

Ah, this just gets better and better. And the campaign statements get more and more absurd.

What Mssrs. Gingrich, Santorum and Romney are all demonstrating in their silly competition to prove who is the "most conservative" is .... non of them can do basic math. If the Republican Party nominates the MOST conservative of this remaining bunch, rather than a centrist with broader crossover appeal to Independents and some Democrats, that nominee will lose nearly 100% of the Democratic vote, approx. 70% of Independent votes (according to recent polls) and up to 18% of Registered Republicans (according to those same polls) say they will either sit out the election or vote for Pres. Obama.

Less than 33% of the national electorate is registered Republican and about 30% of the electorate are Independents. If these polls are accurate the very most that the GOP can hope for, nominating the most 'conservative' candidate is about a 25% to 30% "landslide loss" for the Republican Party in the 2012 Presidential election; and significant carry-over coattail losses of seats in the US House and Senate.

Basic math would tell these candidates that this ill-advised race to the extreme right is going to guarantee a second term for Pres. Obama. So what's the percentage in that decision?

that was the price in his first mirrage.....i guess he's going back 2 her.......moon head

To quote the Wizard of ID " a chicken in every pot" "what we are going to get pots". LOL

I cannot believe how many people here are buying into Obama's energy lies. Newt is absolutely right! My brother, an executive at an American oil company, said if American companies would stop selling their surplus (for higher prices) to foreign countries and place an export tax on them for doing so, we could get the oil prices down. Talk about sheeples!

Linda

Please have your brother explain to you that US refineries export diesel fuel because a very high percentage of autos in Europe run on diesel.

Each barrel of oil yields proportions of gas, kerosene, diesel, etc down to asphalt. Demand varies for each component so refineries sell to the highest bidder.

Unless your buddy Newter intends to nationalize the US energy industry, best let the market allocate supply to meet demand.

And perhaps you should explain to your brother than export taxes are unconstitutional.

Our proven and projected oil reserves are a fraction of those of other countries. We'll never be the largest oil producer. We do, however, have huge reserves of shale oil, but it won't be extracted at a cost that will allow for $2.50/gallon gas.

Sorrry, FOlks. The terminal silliness that afflicts the Republican Party is a bad sign for Western Civilization over the next few years coming up; I can't help but be reminded of the 1930s when the world's leaders ignored the potential for global catastrophe. The only6 bright side is that the sillness which comes from the Republicans is so far ut as to be self-limiting. It very muych appears to me that the world will recogtnize that while Obama is not perfect he has sucesssfully skirted disater for the last few years.

I can't help but be reminded of the 1930s when the world's leaders ignored the potential for global catastrophe.

But, where will we find the next Roosevelt and Churchill? Obama doesn't fit the bill, and the Republicans have made sure that anyone who is remotely in their league will never get the nomination.

These days, there seems to be an obsession that our leaders must be "one of the people" or "just like us." How short-sighted. How many people would want to be operated on by a doctor who is "ordinary"? Yet, we seem to think that the world's largest economy and most powerful military should be managed by Joe the Plumber.

What would happen, I wonder, if middle class Americans banded together to boycott gas stations entirely for a day or two?

It would make for an interesting experiment.

This joke of a man can't even be honest with his wives, his religion and religious beliefs, and then he wants the rest of the USA to trust his greedy, thieving, cheating azz.

If it squeals like a pig, then it's a pig.

http://allthingsdemocrat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Gingrich_Pig.jpg

Newt makes for good commentary. But then again that is all we can expect from Obama as well, just good commentary about gas prices and not much action. As long as the US dollar remains weak, gas prices will remain high. The more in debt this country gets, the weaker the dollar will be. Obama jokes about drill baby drill, which in and of itself trumps anything he has come up with for an energy policy, while his spend baby spend legacy is dooming this country to incredible pain ahead.

The price of a gallon of gasoline is just the beginning of real pain for consumers. Inflation will be replaced by hyper-inflation and then there won't be so many smug Obama supporters. We have a president without the slightest concern for this country's financial health, and a population of Obama supporters all with their hands out that will get jolted back to reality in the not too distant future. Of course by then it will be too late to stop the inevitable, and the free lunch Obama has been promising will end with dire consequences for country.

Lind-M at # 2.7 opines

if American companies would stop selling their surplus (for higher prices) to foreign countries and place an export tax on them for doing so, we could get the oil prices down.

Most all companies (including oil) sell their products where they can make the most money. And how they would tax themselves, I haven't a clue.

Now if you meant that the federal gov't could cajole oil companies into selling the surplus here (for less), and if you meant that the federal gov't could impose an export tax, well, then, in that case you're talking like a big government conservative - like Newt. Reining in the volitile free market for the benevolent oversight of the government.

Rick, you and your type have been predicting all these doomsday predictions from his first few months in office. So far, hasn't happened.

Linda, first of all an export tax is illegal, but do you honestly think the reps would ALLOW a new tax of any kind on a business?? Hell to the NO.

Newter is absolutely bonkers at this stage of the game. $2.50 would never happen (unless the economy tanks again) because our own oil companies will continue to sell to China , etc because they will sell to the highest bidder. Our pricing has long since abandoned supply=demand. It is mostly speculation that drives it up. Recent pricing due to Iran making threats. No shortage. No supply issues.

kaybeetoys What would happen, I wonder, if middle class Americans banded together to boycott gas stations entirely for a day or two? It would make for an interesting experiment

I think this has been more than discussed everytime oil prices go up. Boycotting a gas station does absolutely nothing to bring down gas prices. Gas stations are individually owned and the owners do not make their profits off of the gas they sell, most of their profits are from items sold inside. They make maybe 3 cents a gallon no matter if the price goes up or down. They have to purchase that gas to fill their tanks, its not delivered free. You're just hurting the small business guy trying to make a living.

clb, but it makes KBtoys feel good, which is what the libs are most concerned about.

There is no valid reason to blame gas prices on Obama. Obama has increased domestic oil production, and decreased oil demand. The main things that are driving up oil prices are tensions in the Middle East.

Why not. You blamed Bush for high gas prices?

The question mark placed at the end of your dishonest remark suggests that even you question its validity, Dasvet. Using a lie to prop up another lie may be more than even your innately corrupt character can tolerate.

"Where is Newt going to get the Gas from his Butt" ? ....2.50 gal., "When Pigs Fly"

While it is true that we blamed Bush for higher gas prices when he was in office, it is also true that he started 2 wars in the middle east which raised the price of oil. President Obama is dammed if does (ratchet up sanctions on Iran, causing them to make threats and raise oil prices) and dammed if he doesnt(soft on Iran..) In reality, there is no way to stop the increase of oil prices unless we can re-introduce the restrictions on commodities trading to only those who's industries actually use oil. As long as just about anyone can speculate in oil, they will and that speculation is what is driving the market up. There is nothing that a President Newt can do about the price of oil. The companies that drill and pump petroleum will sell it on the world market for the highest price they can get. Another "anything that will get me elected" lie by the worlds biggest liar, Newt Gingrich.

The only possible thing Newt could do to change prices would be to dump the strategic oil reserve on the market. The Chinese would be delighted to buy up the surplus oil while it was cheap, then in a few weeks it would be depleted, now no reserve if a boycott or war happens. Not the brightest move.

As for export taxes, are you nuts? There is no crude oil export. The US produces less than half the oil consumed in this country, what county is going to sell us crude oil or finished products for half the world price to make the "sunshine and lollipops shooting out Newt's butt" theory work? As for REFINED products being sold overseas from US refiners processing mostly imported crude, that's called value added and jobs for American refineries

Well said, jchastn. Even major American industries like the trucking and airline sectors are asking to have those limits on manipulative speculation put back in place. Conservatives, however, are so beholden to Wall Street they're willing to continue throwing American industry under the bus in order to further enrich the 1%.

The reality is that the POTUS has very little control over the price of gas. More drilling in the US will simply result in more oil being placed in the global marketplace-period. It will NOT lower the price of gas at the pump. We should also remember that a significant portion of the price per gallon is tax. In my state, roughly .60 cents of every gallon is tax.

The other thing is that supply obviously has little to do with price in the first place. Is there a shortage of oil? No. Yet teh price goes up. This is all being done through manipulation.

More of Newt's delusions and fantasies. Why is he still covered as "news"? He has been irrelevant for years now and has become more of a comedy show instead of a serious politician. No one takes this idiot seriously. I would be more inclined to vote for Bo Bo the orangutan than I would Gingrich.

"Dumping" the strategic reserve oil would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. All you Right Wingers complain about the national debt - would you really support "dumping" all that oil and lose the revenue we'd get by selling it at the global market price? You guys really have no clue how the oil markets operate.

Sometimes? Seems? Pretty obvious to me.

I mean, if he thinks if he can single-handedly, as president, bring down fuel costs and have moon colonies .....it is definitely delusions of grandeur.

sometimes how about on drugs.....moon colony.....they all need Treatment

Now, don't be too hard on the blowhard. He just mis-spoke:

Gingrich: I'm the $2.50 gas president

I believe he meant to say, "I'm the $2.50 whore of national politics" and will do and say anything for the spotlight.

Right. And I wonder why he did not also promise that he would bring about world peace, find a cure for cancer and end hunger and disease in the world...oh, those are next week's promises.

Actually, world peace and a cancer cure would not be profitable for Newt's biggest contributors, so I doubt either is on his agenda.

Yes, so he can ruin repair this country even further...

Obama 2012

i keep hearing that Obama has ruined this country, but I have yet to hear anyone say how. And don't be ignorant and mention Obamacare, that hasn't even kicked in yet. In fact, he has done nothing but help this country get back to what it was before the wars and housing disaster.

Stephen: the reason Obama will get a second term is because he's righted the ship from the damn near sinking under GW...GW, the worst president of the modern era. And Obama has done it in 3 years...after 8 years and two wars of near complete destruction of this economy. You go ahead and pine for the "good ol' days" of near total destruction from the let em eat cake party...you're not gong to get many takers for that.

CreepingJesus, it has nothing to do with Obama. No way the Newter gets the GOP nomination to run against Obama.

JonSmith93903...well he dared to be black , that was his first crime, then he thought that the greatest nation in the world should try to allow it's citizens to buy health insurance, then he saved the auto industry , the last real production jobs in America, and then he had the nerve to get us out of a war we never should have been in in the first place, then he gave the go ahead for the Seals to off bin Laden, he put the cost of the wars into the budget instead of hiding them, and oh yeah, he tried to allow women to have control of their own bodies, need I go on ?

The only way a president could get gas down to 2.50 would be to put price controls on it. The last one to try that was a Republican name Nixon. How'd that work out? Not very well if my memory serves me correctly. And that was when gas was always under $1 a gallon. For Newt or any other Republican to get gas down to $2.50 they'd have to toss our capitalism and have the government take over the oil industry. That will go over about as well as the Republicans telling women that they can't use contraceptives. Newt is just plain lying.

Creepie

You gotta read the fine print. Newter promises that the next (as yet unborn) generation will get the cheap gas after the current generation pokes a lot of holes in the ground.

What do you think Obama was doing when he tapped into the national strategic oil reserve? i remember seeing prices recoil slightly from just the mention of a short term market flood. now imagine a president opening the gates of fuel production, not just for his friends but the entire country.

Further more, the demand for fuel will rise with the economy. you greenies probably didn't notice it but fuel consumption has been an indicator of the strength of our economy for some time now. With Obama trying to kill consumption he has also starved our economic recovery.

Galt 2012

The only way a president could get gas down to 2.50 would be to put price controls on it. The last one to try that was a Republican name Nixon. How'd that work out? Not very well if my memory serves me correctly.

Nixon imposed price controls on everything (including salaries). But, you're right, they didn't work. Price controls can work only in the short term because they do nothing to increase supply. In fact, they discourage increases in supply.

elliot .. how has Obama tried to kill consumption?

Oil prices fell back when some oil was released from the reserve because speculators were concerned about their short-term positions. But, releasing the oil isn't a long-term solution and we just don't have enough oil to replace foreign imports.

If you cant see him do it or didnt hear him say it then i cant hold your hand on this one, try google (Volt, solyndra, keystone, EPA)

If Obama would get the epa off the backs of oil companies just a bit you could see production increase, not just a short term flood from the reserves. FYI we are sitting on one of the worlds largest oil supplies, we just arent allowed to get it.

Now this is when you tell me that Obama has approved more drilling permits than bush. and this is when i tell you that those permits are for previously tapped leases and getting oil from them would only raise the cost of fuel.

>>Gingrich: I'm the $2.50 gas president

And the guy with the ten cent ideas.

I've got to believe that many posters out there are collecting the Social Security that they paid for so many working years. If so, then those same posters will remember 1973 as the last time the federal government got into the business of oil price controls and allocation schemes that circumvented the "normal" market forces.

Mr. Gingrich, do you remember hour-long gas lines? Newt, do you remember odd-even license plate numbers determining the odd-even days that you were "permitted" to buy gas? Mr. Speaker, do you remember $2 or $3 limits on the amount purchased?

I remember them, Mr. "$2.50/gal", and I was not impressed with any positive result of those attempts to artificially keep gas prices down. If the price of gasoline goes to $10.00 a gallon because of an expanding demand and/or a diminished or more costly supply, then I guess that'll just make technological progress into solar power all the more competitive.

We are not electing a president to stop progress. We are electing a president to embrace a vision of the future.

FYI we are sitting on one of the worlds largest oil supplies, we just arent allowed to get it.

Our oil reserves are from from the world's largest. We rank way down on the list. We do have tremendous reserves of shale oil, but it is expensive to extract. As for the EPA rules, do we want to destroy our groundwater to extract shale oil? In the future, freshwater will be as precious as oil.

Sorry Newt, but drilling more oil isn't going to solve our problems if we don't have the refineries in this country to refine all this oil coming out of the ground. I am all for drilling, but I am also smart enough to realize that our refineries can barely handle the production they have now, how in the heck are they going to handle more. No new refineries are scheduled to be built, no money in it and the ones we have are old and yes break down a lot. Far too expensive to maintain them. EPA regulations to build a new one makes it far to expensive. Communities don't want them in their neighborhood.

Companies have shut down a handful of large refineries rather than continue to lose money on them. Since December, the US has lost about 4 percent of its refining capacity. That folks hits you in the pocket and also causes prices to go up. Drilling is not going to solve this huge problem Newt!

Barry, its not fracking fault

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10426765-its-not-frackings-fault-study-says?chromedomain=usnews

So clb, why has the industry spent the last 20 years consolidating and CLOSING refineries?

Could it be because that oligarchic approach to the business increases oil company profits?

Nah.

People have no clue how gas is priced. It is all about world market prices. It doesn't matter where the oil comes from. If a US oil company has a well in the US and pumps oil at a real cost of $25/bbl and then refines it into oil at 50 cents per gallon, they will sell that gas as if the oil cost them world market prices to produce. So crude from an American well with a real cost of $25/bbl gets credited as costing $110/bbl or what ever the world market price is. The reasoning is that if the world market price is $110/bbl, that is what they could get for it if they exported it. When world market prices are high, American companies refining US produced oil at cheaper prices, just see the difference as higher profit. Consumers of gasoline get none of that advantage reflected in pump prices.

This is oil's dirty little secret. It's all about world market prices. The only way US produced oil causes gas prices to drop is if world market prices to drop becausethe amount of oil produced significantly reduces the total demand by putting more oil on the market. Even if we tapped into all the theoretical US capacity, this pales in comparison to world market capacity. The increase in US produced oil in Obama's first three years far exceeds the increases in domestic oil production under both terms of GW Bush. Oil is for the most part, a supply and demand product, however, speculation in oil prices is also significantly responsible for the high prices.

The issues with Iran, are a big reason for high world market prices today, based on the speculation that future Iranian production could come off the market as well as other Middle East produced oil potentially being disrupted. Demand and total output has stayed pretty steady with both slightly declining. The OPEC countries do sometimes play games with how much oil they put out in the market place, but that isn't happening now.

The fact is that every day that passes, the total worldwide reserves decrease. This is only common sense. We burn more oil than nature can produce to keep up. As the world gets more industrialized, the demand worldwide slowly trends upwards. Currently, there has been a slight decrease in demand that can be tied to a weakened worldwide economy and to some extent, efforts to improve use efficiency. True that from time to time, some new reserves are discovered, but virtually all of these "new" reserves are expensive oil that is difficult and costly to get at. As these reserves come on line, you can be sure that prices will rise accordingly.

There is one way that we could reduce gasoline prices in the US and that would be to nationalize the oil industry. Then oil, the refining costs and therefore gasoline prices would be based on actual costs, not world market prices. So every barrel of US produced oil would get priced at the actual cost to produce and not the world market price as it is today. So cheaper US produced oil would offset any world market priced imported oil. Even at that, the pump price wouldn't fall anywhere near what people think. For example, for example, the only thing that makes the oil from oil sands attractive, like from the Keystone project, is the high market price. This is not cheap oil. Besides, we'd still be paying world market prices for it as it isn't US oil. But you can be sure that nationalizing oil production isn't about to happen soon and you can be even more sure it won't get proposed by a Republican!

US produced oil means high oil company profits, not cheaper gas. Oil is a global commodity and it makes no difference what it costs to produce or where it comes from. The price is dictated by world market prices.

There is little that any President can do to impact oil prices. Gingrich of course knows this, but he is skilled at trying to capitalize on peoples problems. If he can convince a few idiots that the President's policies have anything to do with gas prices, he garners a few votes. Notice he doesn't make any claim about how he would get gas prices down, nor would he because what ever he proposed would be shot down by people who understand how it works. But then the only people who would even consider voting for him have long ago decided they will vote for anybody but Obama. He's just trying to give them a reason to justify their bias. The only reason anybody would vote for this loser is that they appreciate the fact that he tries very hard to convey a crudely disguised and justified view of racism. And unfortunately, there are some in this country that are looking for that.

Thank you 1NewDay, but I think your explanation is lost on the right wingers, who will listen only to Fox News, Rush, and all the other hate mongers out there.

Good post NewDay. Your last paragraph is especially pertinent in that not only with the oil prices, there is little that any President, on his own, can do without the Congress going along with him. As long as there is such diversity with grid locking power on both sides, doesn't really matter which one of the lemmings gets in there. We have no one with morals or common sense on either side. Until we run them all out of town, change some laws to keep them from making it their career, this is the way it will be. We're not mad enough yet to do this. Getting close, but not there yet.

It appears that Newt wants to invade Canada to take the tar sand oil. 2012 is the 200th anniversary of the last time America tried to invade Canada. Does the school system even teach the result of this folly. There's a charred chunk of the White House sitting in an armoury in Monteral.

Wait, they have a part of the burned White House in Montreal??? Damn, those Canadians are crafty.

Ah well, we still burned their capital at York, routed their British leaders at the Battle of the Thames WHILE killing the Native American leader Tecumseh (all on Canadian soil), and helped the British take Canada from the French. We've done a lot against Canada over the past 230 years of our existence; let 'em have that chunk of the White House. We still have some of those weapons and flags that we probably captured out there on Canadian soil.....

Easy Brian. When the names are really just parodying how the other person constantly slings slander and mud, then name calling wins the argument.

Or are you going to deny people on the right have ever called Obama or liberals socialists, communists, Kenyan muslims, etc etc etc?

Dangerous Mind - There's no end to the names the left calls their opposition. It's a constant... everyone knows it and it's become the norm. But is it really acceptable? Let's play the who started it first game. How many years of the Bush administration did we hear the left sling name after name against anyone in the White House and the staff. Even though Obama is in the White House, the left is still calling their opposition names. Namecalling to me is simply childish. There's nothing mature about it and it simply speaks of the mentality of someone throwing those names out there... It's like... "MOMMY. MOMMY, that bad man wants to hurt me." Isn't it about time liberals grew up?

Let's play the who started it first game.

Seeing that it was alive an well during Lincolns run for President, I am thinking none of us knows who actually started it.

Suffice it to say, that anyone who thinks one side does it more than the other, is just fooling themselves.

The more the old man in Vegas spends the less he has for next time. Bet his kids hate it.

BrianB, the vitriol started with conservatives and Republicans assailing Clinton. You must be too young to remember that.

viglia, tell us you are not serious? If you are, please take history 101, since you must have missed it.

OK Dasvet, you have a point...it started with the unfair and shallow attacks on President Carter.

Happy now?

Wrong again, it started at least back to Andrew Jackson.

implacable, we elected a president in 2008 on just that "snake oil", no substance, so maybe Newt has a chance after all.

Just a thought. How about having all cars incorporate solar panels in their roofs to charge batteries while they are parked most of the day. This type of hybrid would use battery power for the first 20-25 miles (typical commute) before the gasoline engine engaged.

Just saying

The solar panel idea won't work in major metropolitan areas since most downtown parking is in multilevel garages. The people who can actually afford to buy and operate those things usually have a garage in the suburbs so they would still have to plug in to charge it up.

We already subsidize the oil industry to the tune of billions upon billions. Subsidies are supposed to be for struggling industries right? Right?

Those subsidies are subsidies given to most all industries. Anyway, I keep reading the oil industry gets around two billion in subsidies, most of which go to relatively small drilling and exploratory in the form of tax breaks such as accelerated depreciation allowances. Those companies in turn sell that oil to the biggies such as Shell, Exxon-Mobile, etc.

Dasvet

Yeah but, the extraction industries are the only ones that can claim depreciation (depletion) deductions in excess of their cost.

Like I said, all industries get depreciation deductions, some are accelerated, others are not.

Dasvet Your post10.4

Spend $10,000 to drill a well. It produces $10,000 worth of oil per year. The well owner deducts $1,500 each year. If the well produces for 20 years, the owner will deduct $30,000 for a well that cost $10,000.

No other Industry can deduct more that its cost.

Obviously the numbers are only to make a point.

I get depreciation deductions on my little company. The oil companies are every politician's go to when election time rolls around, and Americans fall for it every time. Profit margins of the oil companies are below most companies, percentage wise. around ten percent.

There's been some confusion about this point. We're not exporting more oil than we import, but we are exporting more refined petroleum products than we're importing. Basically, we're importing oil, refining it into diesel and other fuels, then re-exporting some of that. We're still importing almost half our crude oil supply, which is down, but a long way away from being a net exporter of oil.

The point is still valid, though. Unless exports of non-surplus oil are banned, it won't matter if we do achieve independence. Our supplies will still be plugged into a global market.

Great points Nathan...your final sentence sums it up beautifully:

Our supplies will still be plugged into a global market.

Thanks for your clarifications.

In addition to Nathan's comment, the reason some oil is exported is because the capacity to refine it does not exist near where the oil is produced. The capacity to refine all the oil from the Alaska pipeline does not exist on the West Coast.

hs321, thank you I have been asking that question for sometime and you are the first to answer. Now, my next question, why doesn't the oil industry invest in refineries in the areas of the oil? Because they can make as much or more by just raising the price? and Is the oil industry trying to manupliate the election? Wouldn't surprise me.

Now, my next question, why doesn't the oil industry invest in refineries in the areas of the oil?

The reason is simple ... environmental regulations make it very difficult to build new refineries. This would be one area that a president could help. It wouldn't even require a relaxation of regulations ... just simply a will to cut through the endless red tape and come to a decision in a timely manner.

Where's your proof of that, Barry, other than just because it's an article of faith on Fox News and talk radio?

How close are US refineries running to capacity?

How many refineries have been closed over the last 15-20 years?

What are the specific regulations that prevent new refinery capacity from being constructed?

When Republicans had control of both houses of Congress as well as the White House for 6 years why didn't they fix this problem?

If "environmental regulations" are the problem how is a President able to just "cut through the endless red tape"?

Why aren't finished products being imported into the US from countries that DON'T regulate new refineries so highly?

One way to cut through "endless red tape" is to precisely define what studies are acceptable for submission, provide a definite time frame for response and limit the amount of time (and basis) for repeals. Notice that I said nothing about weakening environmental standards because I think that would be a mistake. The biggest enemy of growth is not regulations, but uncertainity.

How close are US refineries running to capacity?

How many refineries have been closed over the last 15-20 years?

What are the specific regulations that prevent new refinery capacity from being constructed?

When Republicans had control of both houses of Congress as well as the White House for 6 years why didn't they fix this problem?

Why aren't finished products being imported into the US from countries that DON'T regulate new refineries so highly?

That first one, btw, is the really critical one. How much capacity is left in the refining system? If you don't know the answer to that one you don't even know if we NEED more refineries.

Oil companies have no interest in keeping prices down and manipulate refining capacity usage to prop up falling gasoline prices. They could easily use gas prices against the President who is calling for an end to oil company welfare.

Why not $2.50 a gallon? Well, the mid-east, energy speculators, the fact the President of the United States doesn't "order" gas prices to be set in this country or in the mid-east....do you need more reasons?

Smart post, Bob. Now, just how does one get oil prices to go down?

Oh Bob, poor Bob. It must be tough to go through life so ill informed. Just because you wish it doesn't make it so. But, you're representative of so many bloggers; simple solutions to very complex problems.

Have a great life.

I wonder if Bob's babysitter knows he's on the computer?

Bob has a point in that the price of everything else goes up in response to rising oil prices.

So, why are Conservatives so fixed on preventing smart regulation that would control the aggressive price speculation that's largely responsible for these extreme swings in price?

I'll pick "before". He wouldn't want to raise taxes on any job creators to get the colony over there, you know.

He's going to drill for oil on the moon!

Wait, I saw this on an episode of South Park. Didn't turn out well, what with them accidentally summoning Cthulhu.

The Moonbase is the only part of Newt's policies I agree with. After all, it's the most realistic one of them.

Moonbase in a 100 years not know and Newt is just crazy. Speculators is what raising up Oil prices. We need to regulate, Cantor told the Speculators they have nothing to worry about the regulation they have stop them.

Speculators is what raising up Oil prices. We need to regulate,

Oil is a global commodity. The US can regulate all that it wants, but it can't do a thing about oil speculation in London, Tokyo and other financial markets. The US doesn't exist in a bubble.

Oh Barry, there you go using facts.

See, facts have a nasty habit of getting in the way of someone's simple solution to complex issues.

After all, it's all Obama's fault, right? Yea, that's the ticket.

No, Barry, we don't exist in a bubble...we're just by far the largest commodity trading market in the world, and the least heavily regulated of any of them.

As a result this is where greedy speculators go to drive up world prices, stealing from the middle class in the process.

nice.....say it aint so newt....pultizer prize Tubby

Ricky, great line (do you write for Colbert?) ... but will he be able to build a better mouse trap?

The hell with all that irrelevant stuff, how did he make that souffle?

The republicans remind me of an overanxious back-seat driver who doesn't know how to drive that acts like they know more than anybody else. They are obnoxious and you are more likely to have an accident if you listen to them.

Plunk Your Magic Twanger Froggy !

MM

Haa, Haa, Haa. You are truly showing your age MM. Good old Andy Devine. I haven't heard that phrase in decades.

Thanks, I needed that.

Dennis

We'll never see $2.50/gal gas, regardless of who wins in November. Gingrinch is simply pandering to the ignorant and the clueless.

Amen!! And I am not religious.

We had a solution to this problem back in the early 1960s but let the oil industry and the competing auto industry (Ford and GM) crush it.

http://www.turbinecar.com/turbine.htm

It is my understanding that this thing could actually be configured to use processed industrial waste as a fuel source. Anything that could be atomized could be used as a fuel. Also due to the complete burning process at very high temperatures the emissions from this vehicle were sterilized air and potable water. I actually saw a video of an engineer drinking a glass of water captured from the car's exhaust while speaking just behind the exhaust pipe of a running turbine engine.

So here we had a solution to our air polution, a solution to our waste disposal, and a solution to our fuel problems all in one simple, practical, and affordable product but corporate greed and political corruption permitted it to be shelved and never allowed to resurface. Andy Granatelli tried to revive interest in it by entering a couple of turbine powered race cars at Indy. While they didn't win because of a faulty bearing that failed in both cars they had managed to completely lap the entire field of internal combustion cars before they failed. Those bearing issues were solvable but because this car so embarrassed the rest of the racing community it was banned from all future events after only two attempts.

http://www.nationalspeedsportnews.com/racing-history/torn-from-the-headlines/andy-granatelli-unveils-turbine-powered-indy-car/

Interestingly this same technology is used everyday in modern passenger jets and military aircraft as well as our ships at sea to produce electricity and auxiliary power. Turbine technology is not new by any means and has been used for years in many applications. In fact most of our nation's electrical power is produced from turbines that are either water driven or steam powered from coal fired boilers. In my opinion we could go a step further and simply use the aircraft technology and produce electricity for a car's drive motors using a rather small and efficient turbine engine to turn a very high output generator. I'm not an engineer so maybe yes and maybe no but it seems to me to be a better idea than a bunch of batteries that will wear out and have to be disposed of and replaced at a very high price. So ask yourself..... who really runs this country? Eh!

LOL

Head Priest,

"The Democrats have created the perception that the President can influence the price of gas."

Please provide proof of this claim. As the late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan said so well; "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

It's all the Democrats fault....yea right.

I was around during the 70's - so what's your friggin point? No, the democrats didn't blame Bush to high gas prices; that's because we know that no president controls the price of gas. Quit smokin the incense, Head Priest...

then how bout we dont trade with any countires since the stuff made here is ours, also lets border up the lower 48 states also, the way you want to go is 3rd world country

Your complete ignorance is astounding. I'm surprised you can figure out how to use a keyboard.

Tarzan,

What you're saying is Gingrich is as much socialist as Chavez.

Tarzan , Do you mean you want a socialist /communist / fascist president ( because I realise Repugs think they all mean the same thing) .I thought you guys were all small government ,less regulation , the free market will solve our problems fanatics .

Is there anybody here knows how much the ordinary citizen in Saudi Arabia paying for the gasoline? Right now... it is around 0.45 Saudi Riyal (USD 0.1177) per litre, or around USD 0.468 per Gallon. Do you think the Greedy Corporation will produce the Oil locally and sell it to American People the same amount the Saudi government is selling it to their people?

Not in a million years. They will export it first before they will sell it to you with this amount. That is FREE MARKET to you!

So how do you think the Oil Prices will go down with "Drill baby Drill" mentality and without regulation?

You really cant be that naive/stupid can you?

And Independent, water over there is VERY expensive. Back in the 1970s it was $5 a gallon of WATER. Here it is cheaper. Plus the Saudis make less money then the average American. That, and the Saudis only have ONE domestic oil company, which is owned by the state. And the state provides lower-cost gas than the private companies.

Nationalizing the oil industry? Isn't that SOCIALISM?

Oh, dear, I forgot. That's only if President Obama does it.

Besides, we all know no Republican is ever going to offend Big Oil like that. Why, they won't even stop our taxpayer dollars from subsidizing those guys. Democrats have tried to do it, but have gotten shot down.

Big oil _likes— getting welfare for screwing us, and Newt is never going to stop that.

My other garbage pail kids didn't cost so much...