Nancy Pelosi: $3.00 a Gallon gas is a result of failure of Bush Admn.

[Soul Crusher]

Why has this bitch been so silent on this now that Bannanarama is POTUS?   

[Soul Crusher]

[Soul Crusher]

[Soul Crusher]

[Fury]

America: We reject your agenda, Pelosi.
Pelosi: I know what's good for you so shut up and take your medicine.

[Dos Equis]

This is the same woman who said this on the eve of the election:

"We will be on pace to maintain the majority in the House of Representatives"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/02/the-latest-live-blogging-from-the-cnn-election-center/#more-132293

[tu_holmes]

She's a fucking kook... We also know that neither Bush nor Obama is controlling fuel prices.

[Soul Crusher]

Final Tab for Pelosi’s Speakership: $5.34 Trillion in New Debt—Or $3.66 Billion Per Day
Thursday, January 06, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey


Outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 4, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

(CNSNews.com) - In the 1,461 days that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) served as speaker of the House, the national debt increased by a total of $5.343 trillion ($5,343,452,800,321.37) or $3.66 billion per day ($3.657,394,113.84), according to official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.

Pelosi was the 52nd speaker of the House. During her tenure, she amassed more debt than the first 49 speakers combined.

The total national debt did not climb above $5.343 trillion (the amount amassed during Pelosi’s four years as speaker) until Feb. 26, 1997, when Rep. Newt Gingrich (R.-Ga.) was serving as the nation’s 50th House speaker.

When Pelosi was sworn in on Jan. 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2011, her last full day in the speakership, it stood at 14,014,049,043,294.41--an increase of $5,343,452,800,321.37.

Pelosi served as speaker for four full years, including one leap year, making her time in that office 1,461 days. On average, the federal government added $3.66 billion ($3,657,394,113.84) in new debt for each of those days.

Pelosi not only outstripped her predecessors in the total volume of debt added to the national debt during her tenure as speaker, but also in the rate at which new debt was added. In fact, Pelosi added debt at a rate more than three times faster than her nearest competitor.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.), who served from Jan. 6, 1999 to Jan. 3, 2007, saw $3.06 trillion ($3,061,785,703,851.74) in new debt added during his tenure, which is more than during any other speakership other than Pelosi’s. But Hastert’s tenure lasted 2,920 days, with the national debt increasing by an average of $1.05 billion ($1,048,556,747.89) for each of those days.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich added $812.4 billion ($812,423,595,162.98) in new debt during a speakership of 1,461 days. The national debt accumulated during Gingrich’s tenure at an average rate of $556 million per day ($556,073,644.88).

When Pelosi became speaker in  January 2007 she was emphatic that there would be no new deficit spending.

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” she said in her inaugural address from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."


Here are the national debt figures for the speakership terms of Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her two immediate predecessors:


Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Jan. 4, 2007               $8,670,596,242,973.04

Jan. 4, 2011              $14,014,049,043,294.41

New debt added:        $5,343,452,800,321.37
Total days served:      1,461 days

Debt added per day:   $3,657,394,113.84

 

Speaker Dennis Hastert

Jan. 6, 1999                 5,615,428,551,461.33

Jan. 3, 2007                 8,677,214,255,313.07

New debt added:         3,061,785,703,851.74

Total days served:      2,920

Debt added per day:   1,048,556,747.89



Speaker Newt Gingrich

Jan. 4, 1995                 4,801,793,426,032.89

Jan. 3, 1999                 5,614,217,021,195.87

New debt added:           812,423,595,162.98

Total days served:      1,461

Debt added per day:    556,073,644.88

[24KT]

Oil to revisit triple-digit prices next year: Rubin
By Tyler Hamilton
Energy and Technology Columnist

Nearly two years ago Jeff Rubin, former chief economist of CIBC World Markets, left Bay St. to focus on spreading a simple message: oil scarcity and higher energy prices are going to make our world smaller.

He wrote a book, embarked on a global speaking tour, won awards – including this year’s National Business Book Award – and now writes a blog that is picked up by the Huffington Post, among others.

Rubin has always been a maverick, and during his time at CIBC never hesitated to tell Canada’s oil and gas industry what it didn’t want to hear. A Cassandra of sorts, Rubin’s book, Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller, talks about a coming age of triple-digit oil prices and how it will throw the machinery of globalization into reverse.

The Star recently sat down with the economist to find out if our world has, in fact, started to get smaller.

The Star: What’s your assessment of the latest oil supply and demand data coming out of the International Energy Agency?

Rubin: If you look at the world energy outlook from the IEA two things really stand out. About 80 per cent of the oil they expect the world to be consuming by 2035 hasn’t been found or developed. About 70 per cent of the oil being produced today will be depleted by then. The second interesting thing is that for an organization that’s always denied the existence of peak oil, they’ve basically acknowledged it by saying that conventional oil production – that is, the type we can afford to burn – peaked in 2006. I think that’s quite a ways for this agency to come.

The Star: What, in your view, does that mean for oil prices in the short term?

Rubin: The reality of this for prices is that we’re going to be at triple-digit oil prices within the first quarter of 2011. We may even be taking a run at the $147-high watermark (per barrel) before 2011 is over. The question is whether the world economy is any better prepared to operate at that level of fuel cost than it was in 2008. If it isn’t, we’re going right back into a recession, which is really the point of my book. It’s about how do we grow with triple-digit oil prices. That requires going from a global economy to a much more local economy. That hasn’t happened yet. It will happen. Certainly, that will happen if we have another oil-induced recession.

The Star: How much has the blowout of BP’s Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico this past spring changed the dialogue around offshore drilling? Is the $40 billion that this is expected to cost BP sending chills throughout the sector?

Rubin: It’s taken the Gulf of Mexico, which was America’s great white hope of growing domestic production, off the map. BP has had to sell assets all over the world to pay for that, and this is the real moratorium on Gulf of Mexico drilling. It’s not the moratorium that Obama has extended to November 2011; it comes down to how many companies have $40 billion? If you look at how many are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, how many of them can afford to lose $40 billion? BP can and survived, but if you’re a BP shareholder you’re taking a haircut. Exxon could survive too, and so could Chevron, but how many other guys can afford to take a $40 billion haircut? And even for Exxon and Chevron, do they really want to risk it? All of a sudden, this disaster changed the risk-reward scenario. People like to say BP was a rogue operator, which is wrong. BP was the most technologically sophisticated oil company in the world. If BP messed up, believe me, that’s the real embargo. If you’re the board of Exxon or Chevron, you’re saying look, “Those guys at BP just messed up, they were the No. 1 at deep water drilling, and they lost $40 billion—is this really worth it to us? Let’s go to Edmonton. Let’s go to Fort McMurray.”

The Star: What has the impact been on talk of offshore drilling in Canada?

Rubin: The toughest speech I ever had to give in my life, including my 20 years at CIBC World Markets, was last June when I was the keynote speaker at the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil and gas drilling convention. The president of Exxon was at the head table. Chevron was at the head table as well. I’m speaking in June and the Macondo well is leaking 50,000 barrels a day. And at this conference the talk is about drilling a well twice as deep as the Macondo well 400 kilometres northeast off the St. John’s Coast. And they’re all going, oh, it could never happen here. That’s bull. Over there, the people in St. John’s say we don’t have hurricane season. They say 400 kilometres northeast of St. John’s the hurricane season is 12 months of the year! Any day on the North Atlantic is equivalent to hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Star: To what extent has the BP spill focused more attention on oil sands and other unconventional plays?

Rubin: It has certainly made people go one step down the bottom of the barrel, and the next step down from deep water is tar sands. All of a sudden China has invested $28 billion in the Orinoco tar sands (in Venezuela) and all of a sudden Fort McMurray is once again in the limelight, and on a scale never thought of before. We’re going to go to about four million barrels a day out of there. What would be next after Fort McMurray? That would be oil shale, and in a world of $200-a-barrel oil that becomes a real possibility. As we get closer and closer to that price we’ll see more capital spent developing oil shale technologies.

The Star: What will this renewed focus on the Alberta tar sands mean for the Canadian economy?

Rubin: Alberta is going to have Middle Eastern-type cash flows in this world. But the polarization, the impact of that, the mirror image of that is a $1.20 Canadian dollar against the U.S. dollar. That exchange rate is not going to deter Alberta’s bitumen exports to the U.S., but how many motor vehicles will Ontario be producing at $1.20 exchange? So we’re going to have a hell of a political fight over energy. Maybe the way that fight takes place is through pricing carbon emissions. You just put a lid on carbon emissions. The Harper government won’t touch that right now, but last time I checked Quebec and Ontario had more seats than Alberta. Right now people don’t see it in those terms, but believe me, they’ll start seeing it. They’ll see a few things happening together: higher oil prices, bigger exports form Alberta, higher exchange rate, more plant closures in Ontario and Quebec. When the Canadian dollar is trading at $1.20 U.S. and they’ve just announced Exxon has taken out Imperial Oil and plans to double their investment in the Canadian tar sands, this will get on the radar screen.

The Star: What’s your take on shale gas? Has it truly changed the fortunes of the natural gas sector, as much as many experts claim?

Rubin: The debate is about the real cost. If you exclude the natural gas liquids that come with most shale projects, is the real cost $4 per Mcf (1,000 cubic feet) or is it $8? If the real cost is $8 then a lot of people, like Chesapeake Energy, the biggest gas producer in the U.S., have a big problem. Is shale gas the sub-prime mortgage market of the natural gas market? Is this one giant con and investors are being conned into thinking there’s a huge supply of gas at $4 when it really costs $7 or $8 to bring it to market? In the fullness of time economics will assert itself, just as it did in the sub-prime mortgage market. But let’s, for the sake of argument, say shale gas is sustainable at $4 and that we don’t really care about the ground-water contamination or we’ve figured out a way to manage that in some sense, the question is, what has it done? It certainly hasn’t pulled down the price of oil. Boone Pickens aside, we can’t use natural gas to substitute for oil as a transit fuel. So if shale gas is real at $4 all it means is oil is going to be increasingly used only as a transit fuel around the world, though gas will be able to substitute for oil entirely as both a feedstock for petrochemicals, as a home heating fuel, and as a power generation source.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/911469--oil-to-revisit-triple-digit-prices-next-year-rubin

[Soul Crusher]

Oil off on U.S. data but OPEC eyed as $100 in sight

 Tue, Jan 11 2011
By Gene Ramos


NEW YORK | Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:40pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil slipped on Thursday as markets weighed disappointing U.S. jobless claims data and the prospect OPEC would raise output should prices break above $100 a barrel for an extended period.

A delegate from a Gulf OPEC member state said OPEC will only hold an emergency meeting if oil bursts into triple digits and stays there, although the group's Gulf members could informally add supply if needed.

Brent crude rallied to near $99 a barrel earlier this week, raising concerns it could break past $100, driving up fuel costs and threatening the fragile economic recovery.

U.S. weekly initial unemployment benefit claims showed their biggest increase in six months, suggesting that, even with recent signs of economic improvement, the labor market paints a gloomy picture for demand.

The data helped drag down stock markets, even as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said he was hopeful about the recent improvement in the outlook, saying he now expects the economy to expand between 3 percent and 4 percent this year.

In London, ICE Brent crude for February settled down 6 cents at $98.06 a barrel, off the day's high at $98.67. U.S. February crude ended down 46 cents at $91.40, falling as Wall Street weakened on the jobs report, after hitting a session high of $92.37.

In late post-settlement trade, Brent crude rose 36 cents to $98.48 a barrel while U.S. crude dropped $1.00 to $90.86.

The spread between the two grades widening as much as $7.66, the widest premium the London grade has held to U.S. oil since February 2009. That premium widened this week amid concerns about supplies of crude tied to Brent, the benchmark for European, Middle East, and African crudes.

Trading was volatile, after settlements hit 27-month highs on both sides of the Atlantic on Wednesday, ahead of the expiry of February Brent expiring and the release of a plethora of U.S. economic indicators scheduled on Friday.

"The (energy) complex succumbed to some weakness in equities today and a related unfavorable jobless figure while shrugging off the support of another strong pop in the euro," said Jim Ritterbusch, president at Ritterbusch & Associates, in Galena, Illinois.

EYES ON OPEC

A delegate from a Gulf OPEC member state said OPEC will only hold an emergency meeting if oil climbs above $100 and stays there, although the group's Gulf members could informally add supply if needed.

"OPEC will only have an extraordinary meeting if oil prices exceed $100 and stay there. We don't want the market to panic," the delegate told Reuters.

The prospect of oil breaking $100 a barrel, last touched in October 2008 after Lehman Brothers collapsed, has raised alarm bells about the impact of fuel costs on the economic recovery.

Top exporter Saudi Arabia has said it favors an oil price between $70 to $80 a barrel, but Libya's top oil official on Thursday said oil prices at $100 a barrel would not harm the world economy and there is no need for OPEC to hold an emergency meeting or add supplies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BD61U20110113

[Soul Crusher]

Rising gasoline prices sour U.S. consumer mood
9:55am EST



NEW YORK, Jan 14 (Reuters) - Rising gasoline prices beat down U.S. consumer sentiment in early January, overshadowing an improved job outlook and passage of temporary federal tax breaks, a survey released on Friday showed.

A year-end surge in gasoline prices ratcheted up consumer inflation expectations to their highest in more than two years, according to the latest data from Thomson Reuters and the University of Michigan.

The surveys' preliminary January reading on the overall consumer sentiment slipped to 72.7, below 74.5 in December. It fell short of a 75.4 reading predicted by economists polled recently by Reuters.

Consumers' current mood deteriorated with average gasoline prices stuck above $3 a gallon. The surveys' barometer of current economic conditions was 79.8 in early January, down from 85.3 in December and below a forecast of 84.6.

The surveys' one-year inflation expectation rose to 3.3 percent from 3.0 percent in December, which was the highest since October 2008. But the five-to-10-year inflation outlook held steady at 2.8 percent for a fourth straight month.

On the other hand, the negative effect from consumers spending more at gasoline stations did not reduce their optimism on the economy.

The survey's gauge of consumer expectations rose to 68.2 from 67.5 in December. It was roughly in line with a predicted reading of 68.3.

Moreover, the 12-month economic outlook index jumped to 87, which was the highest since September 2009.

In early January, just 21 percent of consumers surveyed expected the unemployment rate to increase in the year ahead, the lowest figure recorded in 10 years.

"The stronger performance of the economy was expected to be reflected in the near term by more favorable expected changes in employment," Richard Curtin, director of surveys of consumers from Thomson Reuters and University of Michigan, said in a statement.

(Reporting by Richard Leong; Editing by Padraic Cassidy)

[Option D]

She's a fucking kook... We also know that neither Bush nor Obama is controlling fuel prices.

For some reason 33333 thinks Obama controls the gas price right now

[Soul Crusher]

For some reason 33333 thinks Obama controls the gas price right now

I didnt say he is controlling them, but he wants them sky high and will prevent any steps whatsoever to put any downward pressure on them via more drilling, refining capacity, pressure on OPEC, etc.   


He wants us to pay $7 a gallon and his study from Harvard said that will be the net result of his policies.   

[Soul Crusher]

Anti-Drilling Policies Costing Federal Government Billions in Lost Revenue
Heritage.org ^ | 1/16/11 | staff

Billions of dollars in potential oil revenue that could help close the federal deficit is being lost as a result of President Obama’s anti-drilling agenda.

Production in the Gulf of Mexico — which normally accounts for about 30 percent of all U.S. production — is expected to drop this year by 220,000 barrels per day, according to projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

With oil currently at $90 a barrel and the royalty rate at 18.75 percent, that equals $3.7 million in lost revenue each day.


(Excerpt) Read more at blog.heritage.org ...

[Option D]

Anti-Drilling Policies Costing Federal Government Billions in Lost Revenue
Heritage.org ^ | 1/16/11 | staff
Billions of dollars in potential oil revenue that could help close the federal deficit is being lost as a result of President Obama’s anti-drilling agenda.
Production in the Gulf of Mexico — which normally accounts for about 30 percent of all U.S. production — is expected to drop this year by 220,000 barrels per day, according to projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
With oil currently at $90 a barrel and the royalty rate at 18.75 percent, that equals $3.7 million in lost revenue each day.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.heritage.org ...
[/quote


ohh so now youre good with taxes??

[Soul Crusher]

Taxing oil out of the ground is far better than taxing labor.   

[dario73]

As of 01/18/11:

Average cost of regular gas:  $3.09
Average cost of diesel:  $3.33


Obama sucks.

Interesting how Bush was getting blamed for the high cost of gasoline. Now that is still high during Obama's tenure, it's "well, the president doesn't have control over oil prices". How come that logic didn't exist 3 years ago?  There were even bumper stickers made blaming Bush for gasoline prices.  Now, somehow it is all different. The rules of the game change. Why?

[Soul Crusher]

As of 01/18/11:

Avergae cost of regular gas:  $3.09
Average cost of diesel:  $3.33


Obama sucks.

Interesting how Bush was getting blamed for the high cost of gasoline. Now that is still high during Obama's tenure, it's "well, the president doesn't have control over oil prices". How come that logic didn't exist 3 years ago?  There were even bumper stickers made blaming Bush for gasoline prices.  Now, somehow it is all different. The rules of the game change. Why?

We all know the answer to that.   

[Option D]

Taxing oil out of the ground is far better than taxing labor.   

So are taxes good or bad?

[Soul Crusher]

So are taxes good or bad?

A certain level of taxes is of course required for the basic functions of govt.   The issue is what is being taxed, how its eingtaxes, and how much.   

[Soul Crusher]

Oil prices climb amid IEA warning on $100 price
Jan 18 01:46 PM US/Eastern


World oil prices rose slightly on Tuesday as the IEA warned that crude near $100 was posing a real risk to the global economic recovery.
Brent North Sea crude for delivery in March rose 59 cents to $98.02 a barrel in late afternoon London trade.

New York's main contract, light sweet crude for February, added 22 cents to $91.76.

In its latest monthly report, the International Energy Agency said "recent price levels already pose a real economic risk -- something of deep concern to producers and consumers alike."

Oil prices of $100 a barrel represent a burden of five percent of gross domestic product on the global economy, the IEA calculated, and said such levels in the past "have clearly been associated with economic problems.

"Ultimately, oil producers, financial investors and consumers (notably import-dependent developing countries) all suffer under such a scenario," the report said.

Optimism about the global economic recovery and interest from bullish investors have pushed crude prices close to $100 a barrel in recent sessions, levels last seen in October 2008.

A harsh winter in Europe and parts of North America, as well as growth in China and other developing nations has also boosted prices.

"The recent upside momentum is likely to continue in the medium-term amid expectations of strong US earnings results," said Myrto Sokou, an analyst at Sucden Financial brokers in London.

"The US corporate earnings season has started with strong earnings from Alcoa, Intel and JP Morgan that improved market sentiment and spread optimistic signs across the oil markets and other commodity prices," she added.



Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

[Soul Crusher]

U.S. Oil Output Down to a Trickle? (Gulf's contribution is dwindling)
Kiplinger ^ | 1/12/11 | Jim Patterson



U.S. Oil Output Down to a Trickle?
With permits to drill slowed down or in limbo, the Gulf's contribution is dwindling.
By Jim Patterson, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
January 12, 2011


Domestic oil production faces a long-term decline in the wake of curtailed offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, stemming from the BP oil spill last year. In four to five years, a loss of several hundred thousand barrels a day from the Gulf is likely, enough to significantly boost U.S. reliance on imported oil.


It's no surprise, really. New deepwater drilling has largely come to a standstill in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the October end of the White House moratorium on deepwater drilling, not a single new permit has been issued for drilling in waters more than 500 feet deep. And even permits for shallow-water drilling are currently taking twice as long to complete -- roughly 60 days -- as before. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement -- the federal agency responsible for approving new drilling permits -- notes that, in the aftermath of the BP spill, new applications require increased scrutiny from regulators and can’t be rushed.


"Permits and reviews will be approved only when we are satisfied that all applicable regulatory requirements are met," says Nicholas Pardi, an agency spokesman. "Our priority remains, as it must, to ensure that oil and gas drilling is done in a safe and environmentally responsible manner."


(Excerpt) Read more at kiplinger.com ...

[theonlyone]

 Haha look at the man behind her!!! Racist post reported?

[Soul Crusher]

Higher pump prices coming your way this spring
Associated Press ^ | Jan. 21, 2011, 12:19PM | SANDY SHORE




Gas pump prices that are around $3 a gallon now may seem like a bargain by the time your kids are on Easter egg hunts.

Pump prices have risen nearly 9 percent since Dec. 1 and topped $3.10 a gallon this week. That's the highest level since October 2008. The price may rise or fall a little over the next few months, but analysts expect it to range between $3.20 and $3.75 gallon by March and April ahead of the summer driving season.

The national average for regular gasoline about $3.12 a gallon on Friday, according to AAA, Wright Express and Oil Price Information Service. That's nearly 12 cents more than a month ago and 38 cents above a year ago.

Average pump prices range from $2.81 to $3.70 in major cities. For example, the average in Salt Lake City is $2.74 a gallon and in New Orleans it's $2.97 a gallon. Drivers in San Francisco pay $3.44 a gallon, and in Honolulu gas is $3.58 a gallon.

Americans typically drive less in the winter. Demand is about 1 percentage point higher than a year ago but remains weaker than the historical average, said energy analyst Jim Ritterbusch. The nation's gasoline supplies remain above the five-year average.

Over the next couple of months, refineries will conduct regular maintenance to prepare for the changeover to summer driving mixes. That could affect supplies, but gas prices should remain steady to a few cents more, according to oil analyst Tom Kloza of Oil Price Information Service.

By spring he expects the average price to rise to between $3.50 and $3.75 a gallon. Ritterbusch expects $3.20 to $3.25 a gallon by Memorial Day.


(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...

[240 is Back]

Final Tab for Pelosi’s Speakership

You guys should have told Bush he had this power called "veto".