"There is lots of factors that affect the price of oil/gas and supply is one of them."

Uh-huh. And if we drill now, how long before we see any of what we've drilled at the gas pump? How much goes to our own gas pumps anyway. Dr. Economy, perhaps you could explain all of this in ways that stupid people like President Obama can understand.

15--See 13.

17--Well, that was a non-answer.

I know about supply and demand--something I learned about in high school for god's sake. I asked you to take your very general assertions and apply them to this very specific situation. You either misunderstood my question (poor grasp of English?) or you are deliberately not answering it (troll?).

20--I give up. They've also been teaching English for well over a hundred years in every HS in the nation, 902.
+++++

And holy shit! I agree with Adammm (that's twice, I think). Funny moment: I was writing a post to Adammm last week and my wife looked at what I was writing: "You spelled his name wrong."

"I think that would depend heavily on our refining capacity, wouldn't it?"

902 missed this very important point in his (?) repeated "teaching" rant. Right now, from what I know, our refining capacity is pretty low. If that's true, who the fuck cares how much crude we have. My original questions still stand, and they are part of why I continue to say that "Drill baby drill" doesn't work.

38: "My original questions still stand..." You wanna try to answer them, or are you gonna keep talkin' around the issue? (And I meant "Drill baby drill" as a metaphor for the entire solution that revolves around getting more oil here, not or not also seeking serious development of alternative energy and doing crazy things like cutting back.)

60--Okay. Giving up again. Will I never learn? (And will you never learn to read.) No more from me until 902 decides to address the specific issue.
+++++

62--Steps to become less dependent should include serious investment in alternative energies. We didn't get to the moon by letting the "free market" take care of it. We didn't get the Internet by letting the "free market" take care of it. If we have the vision, we have to support it. (I am leaving out the entire environmental argument.) And yes, I know, those things weren't as directly needed as accessible gas is, but the point is, we the people need to give a shit about more than cheap gas.

"Tell that to the poor or the middle class who have a long drive to work. Tell that to the poor and middle class who have electric bills.
Tell that to the poor and the middle class who buy food."

I am middle class, and I have all of those concerns. What, you thought I was a 1%er? : ) These two points (yours and mine) are not mutually exclusive. We care only about cheap gas, and we never get past the problem of fossil fuels. Short-term okay, long-term no change--we'll still be fucked.

"Should we not work on making what we do have as a real option cheaper while looking into other options?"

Did I say otherwise?

"Not yet. You do seem to be pretending that the knowledge of, and allowance to drill in country and construct the keystone pipeline will not have a positive effect on the gas price via speculation absorption."

I don't know. I'm certainly suggesting that it's not as simple as "the law of supply and demand! the law of supply and demand! the law of supply and demand!" You seem to understand that and agree. I think I have been clear that I'm not claiming I have a solution. If it were as easy as some seem to think, why haven't we already arrived at the solution. And yes, part of me says that every time we open up new drilling or build a pipeline, we're pushing the real solution farther away. Have you noticed that every time gas prices drop back down (a bit), the general populace stops talking about needing to address the problem, and any slight discussion of alternates disappears? That's what I meant about short-term and long-term solutions. We need to consider both, and we need to keep the long-term discussion alive for extended periods of time.
+++++

76--Rhetoric aside, do you have anything to offer?
+++++

"Imbecile, the mere promise of more supply is enough to move the markets down."

But that is NOT what 902 was claiming. And why do you have to go to "imbecile." Ass. I ask specific questions about a specific argument; you take the argument in a different (though valid) direction, and then call me an imbecile. Mature.

Okay, so exactly how much are prices lowered (on average; throw around some data) by the mere promise of more supply? You understand this deeply, so share. Educate the uneducated. I understand that, oddly, promising to increase access to supply will, or might lower prices, but isn't that insane? And again, how much? I sorta figure this should be like a samurai drawing his sword or a cop pulling his gun--if you ain't gonna use it, don't whip it out.

And btw, I was not defending Obama. My sole direction here has been attacking the abovementioned oversimplified supply-demand insistence. And if you think I'm wrong, you might want to also take a stab at about seven other posters to this thread. Not that I mind attention, but I like to share the wealth.

"Billions of tons of plant and animal flesh deposit on the oceans floor everyday; and many MILLIONS OF years later, ends up as oil."

FTFY. "Renewable" doesn't mean "we'll have more in eons."

That said, LE was being sarcastic, spoofing what he thinks of as a "liberal voice."

"I agree with needing to keep the long term solutions in the limelight, but I also think we need to continue with what we currently have as well. It is foolish to cease what we have in hopes of finding what we don't have."

Is anyone seriously suggesting we stop using oil cold turkey? I missed that memo. : ) Listen, I drive a gas-burning car. Economically, I have no choice--I can't afford anything but. Practically, I have no choice--I have to drive to work because it's too far to walk. (I suppose I could bike it in late spring and early fall if I got up really early, didn't care about sweat, and was willing to see even less of my family than I do now.) I'm not suggesting it's feasible for everyone (or even many) to stop driving. I'm suggesting that we need to always keep the big picture in mind, and we need to balance cost concerns with other concerns. The main problem in this debate is that few people on both sides are talking about multiple options, but instead spend most of their time pooh-poohing the other side's ideas, rejecting out of hand and demeaning those who don't agree with them. In this regard, I think we on DR are a pretty good microcosm of the larger population.

On a related note, part of use of resources is management of resources. Americans seem to be bad at both. Much of what we qualify as "need" when it comes to driving is in fact "desire." For instance, I could probably carpool with someone at least more often than I do (which is currently never). There's one person at my school who passes my house (or near enough to it) every day on the way to work. I could probably try to mesh our schedules, adjust, and thereby save us both money and impact on environment. But that's too hard and interferes with my pleasure (riding alone, listening to stories or the news), and I don't like the person and don't want to expose myself to that person's negativity. So is my decision about "need" or about "desire"? Am I making a wise choice? Now think about the millions in, say, Los Angeles, who could in fact take public transport or carpool and be much less frustrated with their commutes. But maybe their reasons are similar to mine? I don't know, but I'm willing to admit that I too am bad at management of resources in this regard. That doesn't mean I can't and we shouldn't talk about what we can and should do better in this realm. (That was a bit of a rant, even for me. Apologies. I'm not motivated right now to go back and edit it down or focus it better. Plus, leaving it open for posters to attack me is more fun. Have at.)

"1. I won't be attacking"

Good! You usually don't attack me. ; )

"2. We need to continue WISELY looking into alternatives"

Agreed. The problem is in finding consensus on what WISELY means.

"3. While we look into alternatives we need to continue looking into what works and what we have as well."

Agreed. Again, the difference is in how to look into those things and which, on balance, are more valuable than damaging. For instance, from what I've read and heard (admittedly not enough), drilling in ANWR is not more valuable than it is damaging. And fracking continues to be extremely controversial.

"4. Most people don't take necessary and beneficial steps because they prefer pleasure over what is probably best for them and others."

Agreed. And not limited to conservative or liberal. It's a human behavior.

"I think you hit quite a few points. Although it is important to remember that the very people who are not doing anything different are the ones trying to make other people do something different."

Sometimes. And sometimes not. You needed a qualifier in there. : )

"It should start with the people who want to do it and supposedly believe in it. Be the example."

I am (small car, reasonable MPG, walk when I can, keep temp low even in winter, minimize AC use in summer, etc.). But I don't think that was really aimed at me. I expect your frustration is with VIP types who appear or are hypocritical. I also think that we as a nation need someone to lead us into actual personal responsibility--or rather, that it sure would help. (The education argument relates here, but I won't take the time to open that can of worms. : ) )

"Thankfully, I have not had to turn on the heat at all this winter."

Wow. Where do you live?

Up here in New England, we've had a very mild winter. I've had the tank filled twice--the first time was only about half; this time (just now) was about the whole thing. But it looks like we'll use a little more than half as much oil as we used last winter.

Viva la MMGW! : )

"I also think that the President should be an example of the things he advocates. "

And vice versa. How come President Bush didn't advocate for environmental policy in line with practices down at the ranch (major use of gray water comes to mind)? I guess it's about legislation and the proper role thereof. (I'm being generous.) I'm not trying to deflect; it's an honest question.

But in general, it would be great to have people more of us can look up to, on more than ideology or maybe even regardless of ideology, in positions of power.

As for bills in Congress, that's interesting. I'd also like to see single-issue voting. If, say, it's about defense, then don't put in riders about social issues. (No, I don't have link.)

93--Granted, but it sure is a contradiction.
+++++

You know what I love about these conversations? None of us really knows any better than the president (be he Obama or Bush) about how all this stuff works. Certainly, none of us here is presenting a plan, just pissing and moaning or going, "Yeah, cool." But surely, most of us are ready to criticize and debate (a term used VERY loosely to describe activity on the DR) anyway.

"That's one impressive world-wide conspiracy you've identified there, MENSAKOOK. I, for one, am concerned."

Wasn't that great. I'm pretty sure our resident mensidiot suggested that the US gov't has a large fliter on Google. I wonder what he thinks about the toppling of the big Saddam statue, that action by random Iraqi citizens...

"Had we ramped up oil production years ago.... where would we be now? "

Out of oil? Environment destroyed? I don't know, but it's not as simple as you seem to imply. I don't know enough to make serious arguments and counterproposals; I do know enough to see that there is no consensus (scientifically) out there on how bad modern oil-extraction methods might be for our world, what the unintended consequences might be, etc.

I also find it intriguing that someone upthread posted that various aspects of oil production are up under the Obama administration. It seems as usual that some facts are being ignored.

" It's going to take every type of alternative to replace the stuff people dont like."

I'd say it's more than that: We need to deliberately explore every type of alternative and some we haven't figured out yet, play with them for a little while, then bring new things to market.

But I'm confused about the production argument now: Overall, production is up, but in areas over which the President has control, production is down? That's bad why? Are we talking about federally protected lands here, such as parks? Or something more broad?

Here's the thing: energy is about national security. Education may be as well, but that's another story.