Who is they?

while it's frustrating, it is a world market 4 oil. having said that, the president's policy has not helped the "folks" at all!

Eric is parroting the usual GOP talking points in order to get elected. Ignore that gas prices were just as high in 2008 under President Bush and that the GOP side insisted it came from factors beyond his control. Ignore the fact that President Bush and the GOP cut taxes and jumped into two expensive, unfunded wars which did not bring us lower gas prices as suggested, taking us from a federal budget surplus to snowballing deficits. In fact, ignore everything but Eric Hovde waving the pretty flag.

The wars were going to bring lower gas prices? How much oil they got up in der mountains of Afghanistan?

Not a lot in Afghanistan, but Iraq sure has its share of oil. Iraq and the non-existent weapons of mass destruction distracted us from the quick in and out action that Afghanistan should have been.

I guess I don't remember the promise of cheap gas if we went in to Iraq by anyone. It was all about the WMD and the mass murder Saddam. I don't even think gas was that expensive in 2003, it was about $1.58/gallon with tax here in WI.

The Iraq War was supposed to pay for itself through the sale of oil, I recall Dick Cheney said. Instead, approximately 40% of the millions of gallons of stolen oil was used to fund the insurgency. It's never been answered what happened to the other 60%. The public will probably never know.

I also recall hearing on NPR just after the fall of Baghdad that "Texas oilmen" were touring the oilfields. That surprised me. Later, when occupied Iraq became the first country in the Middle East to entertain 30-year oil drilling contracts, I understood why.

We were in control of the country Bren. Of course we would send our best from Texas to see what can be done to secure and make sure the oil fields can still produce a product. The military is not in the drilling business. NPR is too stuck in one frame of mind to open up to the real world.

It's Iraq's oil.

Yes, but other experts were much closer, yes? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.?

And yes, it is Iraq's oil. Why indeed would the Bush administration have expected Iraq to pay for its own invasion?

StSw,

Economics 101 yes, but Oblameo has done nothing to keep gas prices down. He has not encouraged new refineries, he has denied the keystone pipeline, he has reduced the amount of drilling and oil production on Federal lands. All this before we talk about what he and his administration has done to eliminate oil production if the Gulf of Mexico.

So what is your point about Republican spending in the past? What about Oblameo's record on the deficit and Federal spending? care to address that? I doubt it. You libs are all bluster and no substance.

Look at the 4 year on that link. See where it takes a drastic drop? That day Bush gave a speech about opening more oil exploration and drilling on federally controlled land. Seems to me like the president can reduce the price by just talking about more production.

So Steve what you are saying is that President Bush was a better marketer? I will certainly give him that. As there has been much more drilling and exploration now then when he was in office, yet prices are still high now. Interesting articles to read: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fact-check-us-drilling-drop-gas-price-15967717#.T3SOh45Kkfo and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/us-oil-drilling-study_n_1369356.html

Unfortunately the oil industry is much too complicated for most to even try to understand. I do like reading quite a bit and from ALL sides and can tell you I still feel plainly stupid when it comes to the math on oil.

He wasn't marketing oil, he was getting government out of the way of the free market and taking away the negative tone of oil.

All he did was talk about more drilling and the price plummeted. The increase of drilling and exploration today is happening on private or state controlled land, not federal. Obama has done nothing but put a "moratorium" on deep ocean drilling which Bush opened up. HE travels the country taking credit for this "increase" in drilling that he has no control over but in the same sentence tell us more drilling will not help, oil is evil and we should throw more money away at alternative energy now and not invest in the fuel we all live on currently. When you shut down production in one area it needs to be picked up on another to meet demand. This increase is not an increase just a shift.

When you set a tone of I hate your product and want the price to be high to force consumers on my alternative plan, it doesn't translate well to a commodity market.

I am sorry Steve, I did not say he marketed oil, I said he was a good marketer as in how he spoke, which is very different. In terms of looking for alternatives I must say I am all for that as sooner than later and especially thinking of future generations we cannot simply just depend on something that will have an end. Much as any other raw material. Unfortunately we all know there is no one perfect solution and no-one will ever figure out what's best, but in my opinion, at least looking into other alternatives is a smart choice, not so much for us now of course but for future generations to come.

Sofia,
Steve lives in a fantasy world. Bush's speech also happened to be right around when the stock market crashed in 2008. Which do you think caused gas prices to plummet?

@St. Swithin -- I don't know about anyone else, but I sure had to cut back on my gasoline use, even though it was already at cut-to-the-bone levels.

@Steve -- Oh you betcha! Bush got government out of the way of the oil industry so that they could drill more and sell more abroad, and gasoline prices are still high right before an election. Who could have predicted that?

No where close. Gas started to fall much before the jump down of the DOW mid Oct 2008. It wasn't a crash either like in 1929. In the end I know it's all Bush's fault in your head.

Randy. Election 2008 gas prices were very low. Nov is very far away to be speculating fuel prices will be high during the election. That is unless you know that it's all because of Obama and only removing him will remove the burden of high energy costs.

Oil is a commodity. The rumor of low or high supply gets the speculators rolling, just as layoff announcements at a publicly-traded company usually send stocks up, in this case because of short-term stability caused by cutting expenses.

Demand for oil is at an all-time high across the planet, so it's not a surprise that the price is up. We'll never see $2 gas again, I'm certain.

We agree then. With higher demand comes the need for more supply, drill baby drill

Difference is, when Bush was president, it was all his fault. Now the president has nothing to do with the price of gas. Funny how that goes.

Oil companies don't set the price of their own product. Why not drill here, 100% of the money stays in the USA, provides good jobs for thousands, and last I checked 99.9% of our vehicles burn a petroleum product. Unless you like to outsource jobs and stuff.

Domestic oil production has increased every year under Obama, after decline the last four years under Bush. The number of drill rigs in the US has tripled under Obama. No amount of drilling on our part is going to impact oil prices. While you're right that oil is a globally traded commodity, the price of oil is effectively under the control of a cartel called OPEC, who control enough production to control the market. As uber-liberal Bill O'Reilly famously said, "any politician that says he can reduce gas prices, is full of BS".

So cutting the supply will lower the global crude oil price?

Oh good grief, I just noticed that this guy is running for Senate! The Republican war on intelligence continues unabated, I see.

Yes, and he seems to think this blather will inspire us to vote for him. I do believe he is mistaken -- about so many things.

Nor do you. Not once did you mention QE 1 and QE2.

His campaign should have vetted the political boards here before posting this screed. Too many fact checkers here for this to stand!

The hyperinflation that the Glenn Beck conspiracy crowd has been waiting for simply hasn't happened. Inflation is under 3%. The reason why energy products, and products that are highly dependent on energy products (i.e. food) are not in the CPI is because they exhibit a high degree of price volatility that has nothing to do with inflation. Clearly, if REAL inflation was over 36% (which is what it would need to be to have doubled the price of goods (gas) in two years' time), absolutely nobody would purchase a t-bill at a rate of 0.2% interest. If they believed that $100 worth of goods would cost $136 in one year, they would not even consider such a deal. If we were seeing skyrocketing interest rates on government debt, or any real increase in CPI, you could make a halfway plausible argument that monetary policy was causing the problem. However, we are seeing the opposite of those things.

But, if you really believe that hyperinflation is right around the corner, go ahead and hoard a bunch of gold. At current prices, it's a sucker's bet, but it's your money!

It's not the 'Glen Beck conspiracy crowd' that buys into the hyperinflation theory--Bernanke has been very concerned with containing inflation...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-usa-fed-idUSBRE82S1CL20120329

"With inflation hovering near the Fed's 2.0 percent target, the focus for U.S. policymakers has been kick-starting economic growth and lowering the 8.3 percent unemployment rate. Still, there are lingering concerns that the central bank's unprecedented actions have sown the seeds for a possible big jump in prices."

@Michael
Isn't 'Peak Oil' a self fulfilling prophecy? A liberal idea desired to cast doubt on an energy system that liberals hate. Then over the course of the prediction liberals do everything possible to restrict any growth in the oil industry. At the end of the original prediction is it really a surprise that liberal are suddenly claiming the prediction is correct. It would be like me predicting that no one will ever win powerball again, then going out and making it impossible for retailers to sell powerball tickets. On Saturday night, when no one wins, I can claim my prediction to be a complete success.

Lets pretend we didn't waste billions on failed alternative energy, but instead used that money to fund projects around making oil able to be burned cleanly. I wonder where we would be? However, that doesn't fit you political agenda of making oil a demon. Instead, liberals would rather return us to a time before oil until we can pull an alternative energy out of butts that can actually sustain the country.

So we should stop trying to lower gas and oil prices?? Let's set up wind mills and plug our cars in, start raising horses and mules and riding our bikes 25 miles to work? That is the Oblameo plan.

JB, thank you for a breath of fresh and intelligent air amongst the ignorance than seems to prevail from the left on these blogs. For example, peak oil is and has been a moving target as modern drilling techniques have pushed it further and further into the future. Suggest that all you libs get some truth serum into your veins by opening up your minds to the revealing and informative features provided by McCuistion Television at www.frtv.org. Check out the author Dan Yergin's book the Quest, by the way he's a true expert on energy not the twisted faux type from the left. And oh yes, Hovde is on the right track about inflation and QE 1, 2 and coming 3. Inflation at 2-3%, who are you kidding have you been to the food markets recently or perhaps bought anything. If you on the left believe what is coming out to this administration re inflation, I definitely have a broken down bridge to sell you.

@DontTreadOnMeEither
Obama victory, Ha! I was trying to point out to you brainwashed liberals that an Obama second term is not a pro-United States term.

How true JB!

@Mike
Since our economy and the worlds economy is currently run by petroleum products, you are suggesting we should allow the rise in oil prices to the detrement of our own economy. Or do you have an alternative that can replace oil?

This has nothing to do with the environment. If it did you libs would be outraged by the birds killed by wind farms or the pollution associated with the making of solar panels. This is about the power to control the country. If libs can control the fuel, they can control what we drive, where we drive and how often we drive. As long as American's can purchase relatively cheap gasoline, libs can't control how we move.

Right on again, JB, good job.

Liberals don't believe in the law of unintended consequences. You can't convince them that everything that's screwed up with the way we do things now isn't the result of corporate greed, or, even if it were, that whatever new idea they have won't be impervious to its effects. All we have to do to make things better is run half-cocked toward some Utopian alternative (insert solution for vexing problem here) and embrace it whole-heartedly.

@menoparent
I agree with ending subsidies, FOR ALL. We can't end it only for oil, what about the billions wasted on failed alternative energy companies. I wonder if you happened to notice that your Democratic friends also voted to keep the subsidies, or does that fit your, evil republican, narrative?

Also, at a time when gas prices are high, do you actually think it is wise to take money away? While at the same time punishing them with nearly 40% corporate tax rate.

@Menoparent
Sure E85 is cheaper, but your vehicle get less gas mileage on ethanol then gasoline. Also, as we take more corn out of the food industry, those prices will go up. Lastly, ethanol takes a huge amount of gas to produce the actual corn. The energy balance for ethanol is 1.3 to 1; which mean for every unit of energy that goes into production only 1.3 is retrieved. It is 5 to 1 for petroleum. You are trying to trade bad for what you assume is bad, why? Because you have bought this theory that oil companies suck?

You get about 1/2 the millage on E85. Try burning it and towing a trailer on an F150.
It is cheaper only becuase of the huge subsidies involved, it can not survive on it's own and more and more local gas stations are pulling it from their tanks as no one is purchasing it.

As JB states we can not burn our food supply.

@Menoparent
American Profiting, what about the inability to by beef or pork, because they eat the corn. I would assume you would be against Big Corn.

Are you talking about the same Brazil drilling for oil in off their cost, with the support of Obama? Yep, we should be just like them.

Menoparent:

Funny how you seem to be the only person that gets the same mileage with E85. Even the government says you should get reduced mileage with E85 and have higher fuel costs...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/ffv2000.shtml

@Menoparent...I drive a 2010 HHR Panel truck that gets about 32 mpg on average. I tried E85 and got about 26 mpg. Nope, my truck did not get the same mileage and it performed like a dog. Lack of power climbing hills or carrying me equipment. Some of my friends that have turbo equipped cars like it because it's great at the drag strip, but not on the highway. They have computer tunable timing in their cars

*snerk* Eric Hovde = Randall Flagg?

Sorry, Jamie Sheridan and Eric Hovde aren't quite awful enough to play the 'Walkin' Dude'. Although Evil does tend to hide behind a fair face.

I'm not saying that Eric Hovde is the Antichrist, and I'm certainly not suggesting that he's going to wipe out 97% of humanity with a mutated flu virus and then summon us to Las Vegas in our dreams.

I'm just saying that it's -interesting- how right-wing talk radio refuses to talk about Eric Hovde's resemblance to Randall Flagg. I also think it's -interesting- that Eric Hovde has never produced his birth certificate. And why has Eric Hovde's campaign been -silent- in the face of rumors that he can turn into a crow? What are they hiding?

In that case, I'm not saying I plan to head for Boulder and the nice old black lady. M O O N -- that spells voting for Tammy Baldwin!

@Menoparent
I never said they were removing it.

The E85 in Brazil is made from sugar cane and their growing season is slightly different from ours. I enjoy how have nothing to add to the fact that Brazil is drilling for oil.

The price of pork has gone up 85% since the decision to use corn as fuel, but who cares we are all profiting.

Actually, the Brazillians use about 25% Ethanol in their fuel. That also is tied to the harvest of sugar can so the blend can change several times a year. Until the release of the 2009 VW Polo, all flex fueled vehicles in Brazil had to have an auxiliary start up tank to allow the engine to reach operating temperatures. This was also a problem when I modified my 1969 Buick 350 V8 powered car to run on 20% alcohol in the 70s. I was the first to sell "gasohol", as it was called back then, in California. We sold an E10 mix like today. With sensors and fuel injection, computer timing control, a car can run decent on E10. Not so back then.

What about the ethanol subsidies?

I'm not buying your 'same mileage with E85' claim. Not a single vehicle on the list gets close to the same mileage on E85 as it does on gas.

2011 Model year:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/FFV2011.shtml

2012 Model year:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/FFV2012.shtml