ptown_trojans_1;1143071 wrote:If Romney has any brains, he would hammer Obama on the North Korea policy. Because, it has been a total failure, just like Bush's and Clinton's.

I don't think that's a topic either candidate wants to pontificate on at length. Actually Obama would probably welcome that more as it's far easier for him to control and manipulate an argument long on hypotheticals and shades of gray and short on objective facts to account for.

Romney had a truly great line the other day when he said Obama is inventing all kinds of strawmen to campaign against. Everyone knows he can't campaign on his record.

gut;1143193 wrote:Romney had a truly great line the other day when he said Obama is inventing all kinds of strawmen to campaign against.

And straw-women...don't forget women!

So we now have:

Bush
Arab Spring
The Republican House
The New Media
Technology
Oil speculators
Reagan
The Founding Fathers
Bush
Eeeevil corporations
Those who earn more than $200,000
The eeevil rich
Corporate jet owners
Bush
Wall Street
Fox News
Women
Health insurance companies
Christians in particular Catholics
Bush
Tea Party
Weather
ATM's
Big Oil
Japanese tsunamis
Tax cuts
Tax increases
Conservative bloggers
Pharmaceutical companies
Bush

Believer- Don't forget about Bush.

BGFalcons82;1143257 wrote:Believer- Don't forget about Bush.

Crap....I knew I forgot someone!

I don't see "God & guns" on the list. Has he recanted?

Can someone please explain to me how gas prices are affected in any way by the president of the United States?.......I'll wait.......Some things IMO are fine to criticize Obama on but that isn't one of them.

Y-Town Steelhound;1144078 wrote:Can someone please explain to me how gas prices are affected in any way by the president of the United States?.......I'll wait.......Some things IMO are fine to criticize Obama on but that isn't one of them.

1. Barry could publicly commit to reasonable and responsible domestic/North American drilling including making the Keystone XL Pipeline a reality, encouraging the enhancement of the Trans-Alaska pipeline system, encouraging the development of economical oil shale extraction, and opening ANWR.
2. He could end his incessant anti- oil industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric. It is not the President’s place to decide when an industry’s profitability is “high enough”. High oil company profits fund more drilling. Drilling can mean more future supply and lower prices or at least moderate it.
3. He could stop targeting the oil industry for punitive eeeeevil oil taxes.
4. He could acknowledge that his Big Gubmint is in the energy business and is a partner in the industry’s success. After all, oil and gas taxes are the Fed's #2 source of revenue behind income taxes.
5. He could acknowledge that eeeeevil oil companies do not necessarily want to be the “next BP”. Smacking around all oil companies because of the foul-up of BP is nuts.
6. Barry's overreaction to the BP spill cost us something like 500,000 barrels per day of domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico.
7. He could acknowledge that the best gubmint regulation of the energy industry should come from the states; not the Feds. It is nuts to think that a one-size-fits-all Federal policy can be applied to regulate the energy industry when energy opportunities in each state vary greatly.
8. Barry's Energy Secretary’s rationale for the recent hefty increases in government royalties on offshore drilling needs to be re-evaluated. Higher taxes mean less drilling. But that's just part of the Obama anti-fossil fuel plan isn't it?
9. Barry could encourage natural gas production. Natural gas is clean, abundant and nearly 100% domestic. No brainer.
10. Barry could back off his anti-coal industry policies and acknowledge that we still need this abundant domestic source of energy until we have a chance to develop economically sound "alternative" sources of energy.

I have more but - yeah - the POTUS can influence gas prices.

Y-Town Steelhound;1144078 wrote:Can someone please explain to me how gas prices are affected in any way by the president of the United States?.......I'll wait.......Some things IMO are fine to criticize Obama on but that isn't one of them.

LOL No need to wait...I'll gladly 'splain it:

1. Barry could publicly commit to reasonable and responsible domestic/North American drilling including making the Keystone pipeline a reality, encouraging the enhancement of the Trans-Alaska pipeline system, encouraging the development of economical oil shale extraction, and opening ANWR.
2. He could end his incessant anti- oil industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric. It is not the President’s place to decide when an industry’s profitability is “high enough”. High oil company profits fund more drilling. Drilling can mean more future supply and lower prices or at least moderate it.
3. He could stop targeting the oil industry for punitive eeeeevil oil taxes.
4. He could acknowledge that his Big Gubmint is in the energy business and is a partner in the industry’s success. After all, oil and gas taxes are the Fed's #2 source of revenue behind income taxes.
5. He could acknowledge that eeeeevil oil companies do not necessarily want to be the “next BP”. Smacking around all oil companies because of the foul-up of BP is nuts.
6. Barry's overreaction to the BP spill cost us something like 500,000 barrels per day of domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico.
7. He could acknowledge that the best gubmint regulation of the energy industry should come from the states; not the Feds. It is nuts to think that a one-size-fits-all Federal policy can be applied to regulate the energy industry when energy opportunities in each state vary greatly.
8. Barry's Energy Secretary’s rationale for the recent hefty increases in government royalties on offshore drilling needs to be re-evaluated. Higher taxes mean less drilling. But that's just part of the Obama anti-fossil fuel plan isn't it?
9. Barry could encourage natural gas production. Natural gas is clean, abundant and nearly 100% domestic. No brainer.
10. Barry could back off his anti-coal industry policies and acknowledge that we still need this abundant domestic source of energy until we have a chance to develop economically sound "alternative" sources of energy.

I have more but - yeah - the POTUS can influence gas prices.

believer;1144090 wrote:LOL No need to wait...I'll gladly 'splain it:

1. Barry could publicly commit to reasonable and responsible domestic/North American drilling including making the Keystone pipeline a reality, encouraging the enhancement of the Trans-Alaska pipeline system, encouraging the development of economical oil shale extraction, and opening ANWR.
2. He could end his incessant anti- oil industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric. It is not the President’s place to decide when an industry’s profitability is “high enough”. High oil company profits fund more drilling. Drilling can mean more future supply and lower prices or at least moderate it.
3. He could stop targeting the oil industry for punitive eeeeevil oil taxes.
4. He could acknowledge that his Big Gubmint is in the energy business and is a partner in the industry’s success. After all, oil and gas taxes are the Fed's #2 source of revenue behind income taxes.
5. He could acknowledge that eeeeevil oil companies do not necessarily want to be the “next BP”. Smacking around all oil companies because of the foul-up of BP is nuts.
6. Barry's overreaction to the BP spill cost us something like 500,000 barrels per day of domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico.
7. He could acknowledge that the best gubmint regulation of the energy industry should come from the states; not the Feds. It is nuts to think that a one-size-fits-all Federal policy can be applied to regulate the energy industry when energy opportunities in each state vary greatly.
8. Barry's Energy Secretary’s rationale for the recent hefty increases in government royalties on offshore drilling needs to be re-evaluated. Higher taxes mean less drilling. But that's just part of the Obama anti-fossil fuel plan isn't it?
9. Barry could encourage natural gas production. Natural gas is clean, abundant and nearly 100% domestic. No brainer.
10. Barry could back off his anti-coal industry policies and acknowledge that we still need this abundant domestic source of energy until we have a chance to develop economically sound "alternative" sources of energy.

I have more but - yeah - the POTUS can influence gas prices.

No he can't and no he shouldn't.

WebFire;1144110 wrote:No he can't and no he shouldn't.

The question was, "Can someone please explain to me how gas prices are affected in any way by the president of the United States?" Believer posted, "I have more but - yeah - the POTUS can influence gas prices."

The question isn't if the President controls gas prices. Hell, if anyone could control them, then what type of economic system would we have? The answer is that through the country's leadership and policy direction, oil, gas, natural gas and coal pricing can be influenced. Still don't think so? Remember in the Summer of 2008 when oil hit $150/barrel? What significant action did Bush 43 take that burst the bubble? He signed an executive order permitting new oil and natural gas drilling. The speculators ran for the Caymans, the bubble pricing burst, and gas was selling for about $1.80/gal come Immaculation Day, January 20, 2009. While Bush 43 could not control pricing, he sure as hell influenced it.

Maybe having the Obama Energy Secretary, Cho, testify that he thinks we don't have a gasoline pricing problem and he's previously stated he thinks we should have European-style gas prices of $8 to $9 per gallon has some influence on the markets. What do you think?

believer;1144090 wrote:LOL No need to wait...I'll gladly 'splain it:

1. Barry could publicly commit to reasonable and responsible domestic/North American drilling including making the Keystone pipeline a reality, encouraging the enhancement of the Trans-Alaska pipeline system, encouraging the development of economical oil shale extraction, and opening ANWR.
2. He could end his incessant anti- oil industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric. It is not the President’s place to decide when an industry’s profitability is “high enough”. High oil company profits fund more drilling. Drilling can mean more future supply and lower prices or at least moderate it.
3. He could stop targeting the oil industry for punitive eeeeevil oil taxes.
4. He could acknowledge that his Big Gubmint is in the energy business and is a partner in the industry’s success. After all, oil and gas taxes are the Fed's #2 source of revenue behind income taxes.
5. He could acknowledge that eeeeevil oil companies do not necessarily want to be the “next BP”. Smacking around all oil companies because of the foul-up of BP is nuts.
6. Barry's overreaction to the BP spill cost us something like 500,000 barrels per day of domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico.
7. He could acknowledge that the best gubmint regulation of the energy industry should come from the states; not the Feds. It is nuts to think that a one-size-fits-all Federal policy can be applied to regulate the energy industry when energy opportunities in each state vary greatly.
8. Barry's Energy Secretary’s rationale for the recent hefty increases in government royalties on offshore drilling needs to be re-evaluated. Higher taxes mean less drilling. But that's just part of the Obama anti-fossil fuel plan isn't it?
9. Barry could encourage natural gas production. Natural gas is clean, abundant and nearly 100% domestic. No brainer.
10. Barry could back off his anti-coal industry policies and acknowledge that we still need this abundant domestic source of energy until we have a chance to develop economically sound "alternative" sources of energy.

I have more but - yeah - the POTUS can influence gas prices.

I get your points, but oil prices are driven by Worldwide speculation as well. Demand in India and China has increased, as well as various other geopolitical situations in the Middle East and Africa have kept prices low. I'd say that has more of an impact on oil prices than whatever the President can say or do.

I get what you are saying ,and yeah the President can do more, but really not much more to drive down prices. It is a free market, and the Government cannot dictate prices remember lol.

BGFalcons82;1144154 wrote:The question was, "Can someone please explain to me how gas prices are affected in any way by the president of the United States?" Believer posted, "I have more but - yeah - the POTUS can influence gas prices."

The question isn't if the President controls gas prices. Hell, if anyone could control them, then what type of economic system would we have? The answer is that through the country's leadership and policy direction, oil, gas, natural gas and coal pricing can be influenced. Still don't think so? Remember in the Summer of 2008 when oil hit $150/barrel? What significant action did Bush 43 take that burst the bubble? He signed an executive order permitting new oil and natural gas drilling. The speculators ran for the Caymans, the bubble pricing burst, and gas was selling for about $1.80/gal come Immaculation Day, January 20, 2009. While Bush 43 could not control pricing, he sure as hell influenced it.

Maybe having the Obama Energy Secretary, Cho, testify that he thinks we don't have a gasoline pricing problem and he's previously stated he thinks we should have European-style gas prices of $8 to $9 per gallon has some influence on the markets. What do you think?

Gas not $1.80 in 2009. It was more like $2.80-$3.00. At least that what it was like here in the DC area.

Prices went down in 2008 due to a huge drop in demand around the globe due to the recession, and the market finally bottomed out from the high prices.

And the Chu statement is taken out of context. Go back and actually read his whole testimony, not just a summary or snippet. Go to the actual source.

Y-Town Steelhound;1144078 wrote:Can someone please explain to me how gas prices are affected in any way by the president of the United States?.......I'll wait.......Some things IMO are fine to criticize Obama on but that isn't one of them.

Obama doesn't seem to have a problem sending more of our troops into foreign lands, dropping more of our bombs on foreign people, bailing out his banker buddies or car companies or labor unions or solar companies or drug companies or insurance companies.

How does he pay for all of that? Oh, we just borrow the money right? Ok, who lends us the money? Oh, we just print it up and lend it to ourselves while paying interest to Barack's banker friends. Sweet deal huh? Why will our dollars by less gas again?

ptown_trojans_1;1144205 wrote:It is a free market, and the Government cannot dictate prices remember lol.

Therein lay the issue. BO's energy policy is not letting the free market dictate, they are piling on regulations and arbitrarily raising costs through taxes and other means to "steer" the market toward good, clean wholesome green energy. That certainly does nothing to lower the cost at the pump.

I've been pounding the table for a few years for coal-to-gas tech. But, no, the govt would rather subsidize not-ready-for-primetime alterantive energies because dirty coal is just evil. Nevermind vs. conventional gasoline the carbon footprint of the coal-to-gas process is not materially more, and likely a little less. The potential is quite significant - enough to increase supplies to positively impact prices in a big way.

And that's not even touching the lack of investment in infrastructure to enable the expansion of the natural gas powered fleet. When Obama talks about a kitchen-sink approach to energy policy, he really only means green energy (no matter how limited the potential).

Bush's policy was no better on the potential alternatives for fossil fuels. But he was more friendly to the conventional fossil fuels production (though the potential is not really there to have much of an impact).

ptown_trojans_1;1144205 wrote:I get your points, but oil prices are driven by Worldwide speculation as well. Demand in India and China has increased, as well as various other geopolitical situations in the Middle East and Africa have kept prices low. I'd say that has more of an impact on oil prices than whatever the President can say or do.

I get what you are saying ,and yeah the President can do more, but really not much more to drive down prices. It is a free market, and the Government cannot dictate prices remember lol.

Y-Town asked if gas prices are affected in any way by the POTUS. I simply pointed out that it is possible.

Can Obama or the gubmint control gas prices? In general, no.

ptown_trojans_1;1144209 wrote:Gas not $1.80 in 2009. It was more like $2.80-$3.00. At least that what it was like here in the DC area.

Prices went down in 2008 due to a huge drop in demand around the globe due to the recession, and the market finally bottomed out from the high prices.

And the Chu statement is taken out of context. Go back and actually read his whole testimony, not just a summary or snippet. Go to the actual source.

Yes, gasoline was around $1.80 at the time of Obama's swearing-in. Here you go regarding gas prices - http://www.columbusgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx You can pick virtually any city and any time frame. I work in C-bus, so I go with that one. Go ahead and find January, 2009 and tell me what the gas price was. You can also click the box to show the price of oil and it shows the relationship on the graph. I know it must pain the left to have to admit Bush 43 actually did something right during his 8 years, but he did do his job in 2008 to deflate the oil/gas bubble. I know the talking points state that the global recession brought down prices, but look again at the chart. The recession started in 2007 and the price rocketed skyward in 2008, therefore laying waste to the left's causation diatribe.

Chu is a green-energy guru. Do you know he proffered painting all the roofs in the country white to cut down on global warming? Sweet. He doesn't even own a car, yet here he is in charge of whateverthefuck energy "policy" Obama is spewing. Oh well...we've got a Treasury Secretary that cheated on his taxes, so at least the administration is consistent on appointing unqualified people to cabinet posts. Which should I read...his congressional testimony or his statements prior to being appointed?

believer;1144220 wrote: Can Obama or the gubmint control gas prices? In general, no.

But they can temporarily have an impact when they release strategic reserves. They've got it pretty well filled up. Expect a significant dumping leading up to election time to try and create some relief as people head to the polls.

gut;1144218 wrote:Therein lay the issue. BO's energy policy is not letting the free market dictate, they are piling on regulations and arbitrarily raising costs through taxes and other means to "steer" the market toward good, clean wholesome green energy. That certainly does nothing to lower the cost at the pump.

I've been pounding the table for a few years for coal-to-gas tech. But, no, the govt would rather subsidize not-ready-for-primetime alterantive energies because dirty coal is just evil. Nevermind vs. conventional gasoline the carbon footprint of the coal-to-gas process is not materially more, and likely a little less. The potential is quite significant - enough to increase supplies to positively impact prices in a big way.

And that's not even touching the lack of investment in infrastructure to enable the expansion of the natural gas powered fleet. When Obama talks about a kitchen-sink approach to energy policy, he really only means green energy (no matter how limited the potential).

Bush's policy was no better on the potential alternatives for fossil fuels. But he was more friendly to the conventional fossil fuels production (though the potential is not really there to have much of an impact).

Well to be fair, I don't disagree with much of what you said but a tax on fossil fuels or something similar to raise their price would better reflect the external costs of those products as they would be in a truly free and competitive market. This is the same position that is held by proud pigou-club member Greg Mankiw, your boy Romney's main economic adviser

BGFalcons82;1144221 wrote:Yes, gasoline was around $1.80 at the time of Obama's swearing-in. Here you go regarding gas prices - http://www.columbusgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx You can pick virtually any city and any time frame. I work in C-bus, so I go with that one. Go ahead and find January, 2009 and tell me what the gas price was. You can also click the box to show the price of oil and it shows the relationship on the graph. I know it must pain the left to have to admit Bush 43 actually did something right during his 8 years, but he did do his job in 2008 to deflate the oil/gas bubble. I know the talking points state that the global recession brought down prices, but look again at the chart. The recession started in 2007 and the price rocketed skyward in 2008, therefore laying waste to the left's causation diatribe.

Chu is a green-energy guru. Do you know he proffered painting all the roofs in the country white to cut down on global warming? Sweet. He doesn't even own a car, yet here he is in charge of whateverthefuck energy "policy" Obama is spewing. Oh well...we've got a Treasury Secretary that cheated on his taxes, so at least the administration is consistent on appointing unqualified people to cabinet posts. Which should I read...his congressional testimony or his statements prior to being appointed?

So George W. Bush "deflated" the oil and gas bubble now? LOL.

BoatShoes;1145637 wrote:Well to be fair, I don't disagree with much of what you said but a tax on fossil fuels or something similar to raise their price would better reflect the external costs of those products as they would be in a truly free and competitive market. This is the same position that is held by proud pigou-club member Greg Mankiw, your boy Romney's main economic adviser

That's true, however I think the "tax" and "regulation" burden is something far in excess of a fair market, reflective of over-reaction and over-compensation to research that is far from conclusive (in terms of man's actual marginal impact and what can be mitigated). Especially when you consider that environmental impact is not permanent.

How the govt has traditionally operated with fledgling industries is to offer tax credits and incentives. And that's the route I favor. I do not favor the current approach which is to be the dumb venture capital money and pay for that foolishness with excessive taxes on traditional fuels. Very fair point about the economic and social costs, and I can go along with that but what I do not agree with is doing so excessively to create DISINCENTIVE (which is not free market but the govt interfering to pick winners and losers, which it typically has a poor track record of).

BoatShoes;1145642 wrote:So George W. Bush "deflated" the oil and gas bubble now? LOL.

Not by himself, but he played a large role. You're a pretty smart fella, Boat...don't you remember the Summer of 2008? Here's some links to help ya out:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14323-bush-lifts-ban-on-oil-drilling-in-coastal-waters.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/23/mccain-give-bush-credit-for-oil-price-drop/

http://www.ColumbusGasPrices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=Columbus&city2=&city3=&crude=y&tme=48&units=us

On July 14, 2008, Bush 43 lifted off-shore drilling restrictions. This was nearly the exact day of oil's all-time high. Look at the last link...within days, the price of oil started a very sharp downward trajectory. By the end of October, oil was selling for around $66/barrel, or about a 120% price crash. I'm certain we can all agree that speculators helped drive the price up like a Saturn 5 rocket. As long as they could propel the myths that oil reserves were drying up, the Chinese were going take every available drop, and that chaos was around the corner, they could manipulate the price. When Bush made his announcement and made the speculators deal with reality, they figured out their game was up and it was time to cash in on the profits. Yes, there were other forces at work. But you have to give Bush credit for helping to pop the bubble.

Please note, even though the Democrat-controlled House begged him to release the oil reserves (http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/08/news/pelosi_oil/ ) , he chose not to because...well...they are a military reserve for emergencies not an economic and political tool. The current occupier believes differently.

BGFalcons82;1146117 wrote:Not by himself, but he played a large role. You're a pretty smart fella, Boat...don't you remember the Summer of 2008? Here's some links to help ya out:


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14323-bush-lifts-ban-on-oil-drilling-in-coastal-waters.html


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/23/mccain-give-bush-credit-for-oil-price-drop/


http://www.ColumbusGasPrices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=Columbus&city2=&city3=&crude=y&tme=48&units=us


On July 14, 2008, Bush 43 lifted off-shore drilling restrictions. This was nearly the exact day of oil's all-time high. Look at the last link...within days, the price of oil started a very sharp downward trajectory. By the end of October, oil was selling for around $66/barrel, or about a 120% price crash. I'm certain we can all agree that speculators helped drive the price up like a Saturn 5 rocket. As long as they could propel the myths that oil reserves were drying up, the Chinese were going take every available drop, and that chaos was around the corner, they could manipulate the price. When Bush made his announcement and made the speculators deal with reality, they figured out their game was up and it was time to cash in on the profits. Yes, there were other forces at work. But you have to give Bush credit for helping to pop the bubble.


Please note, even though the Democrat-controlled House begged him to release the oil reserves (http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/08/news/pelosi_oil/ ) , he chose not to because...well...they are a military reserve for emergencies not an economic and political tool. The current occupier believes differently.

What happened on Sept. 15th 2008? Oh that's right, the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history that sent the economy off a cliff. If you look at your CBus gas price chart...that's around when the biggest drop occurred. And, the economy was already heading toward the pits in July as the Housing Bubble had already popped and the U.S. stock market had been in pronounced decline since October 07, mortgage lenders were going bankrupt left and right...the raft had a one way ticket to the waterfall.







Unlike natural gas or electricity the U.S. doesn't have the power alone to shift supply and demand in world oil markets and a little lift of an executive order (which Congress didn't even follow) certainly wouldn't do it

I realize nothing will change your mind but you're giving the Rooster the credit for the dawn.

Just can't give up the ship, eh Boat? According to the NBER, the "great recession" lasted from December 2007 through June of 2009 - http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html

According to the chart, the price of oil in 12/2007 was about $90/barrel. It rose on a steep upward path until cresting at about $147 on July, 2008...or about a 63% INCREASE since the beginning of the "great recession". How does this line up with the Dem talking points/revisionist history-writers that the bubble burst because of the "great recession"? In other words, how did the price of oil increase 9% per month for the first 7 months of the "great recession"? You are asking about Sept 15, 2008? Look again. The price was about $80/barrel on the date you claim sent the economy off the cliff. In other words, it has already given back most, if not all, of the speculation run-up before September 15th. I suppose during this time period you could claim the "great recession" had something to do with it and I'm OK with it. My point is that evil rotten scum satanic George W. Bush broke the momentum of the rising speculator's market with an executive order act that shouldn't have meant much on paper...but it was huge in the markets. It is undeniable.

I know it pains the Bush Haters Club to admit that the 43rd President did even one good thing for our country. I understand your conundrum.

BGFalcons82;1147113 wrote:Just can't give up the ship, eh Boat? According to the NBER, the "great recession" lasted from December 2007 through June of 2009 - http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html


According to the chart, the price of oil in 12/2007 was about $90/barrel. It rose on a steep upward path until cresting at about $147 on July, 2008...or about a 63% INCREASE since the beginning of the "great recession". How does this line up with the Dem talking points/revisionist history-writers that the bubble burst because of the "great recession"? In other words, how did the price of oil increase 9% per month for the first 7 months of the "great recession"? You are asking about Sept 15, 2008? Look again. The price was about $80/barrel on the date you claim sent the economy off the cliff. In other words, it has already given back most, if not all, of the speculation run-up before September 15th. I suppose during this time period you could claim the "great recession" had something to do with it and I'm OK with it. My point is that evil rotten scum satanic George W. Bush broke the momentum of the rising speculator's market with an executive order act that shouldn't have meant much on paper...but it was huge in the markets. It is undeniable.


I know it pains the Bush Haters Club to admit that the 43rd President did even one good thing for our country. I understand your conundrum.

Believe it or not I voted for President Bush in 04' and I don't think he's evil rotten scum. But, his lame executive order did not pop any oil speculation market and cause the drop in oil prices. To think it did and say "it is undeniable" is willful blindness plain and simple. It's all about worldwide supply and demand.

President Bush's executive order had nothing to do with the drop in oil prices. Find me one serious economist who thinks so.

I believe they also released some strategic reserves around election time, and expect Obama to do the same in a big way (former economic adviser Goolsbee already laying that foundation for that "justification" a few weeks ago in the WSJ).

We were already in recession by the election in 2008, but remember the economy got knocked down in Apr/May(?) with Bear imploding, and then in August maybe saved by the bell when Lehman got floored.

But if we had done more with coal and natural gas, not to mention ANR and some other things, that would have added enough supply to have an impact. It's not going to get us back below $2/ga, but, yeah, Newt is probably right about $2.50. For much of 2010 - well into the recovery - I think it hovered @ $2.80-$3.00 for much of the year, and then about this time last year it jumped up to @ $3.80 and has pretty well stayed there +/- half a buck or so.