The General
Footballguy
Stock Market blowing up, economy killing it, unemployment way down. Why exactly did Dems run away from this guy in last election?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Thank Obama For Your Higher Gas Prices (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jim11
- Start date
NCCommish
Footballguy
Because they are idiots and cowards. They even ran away from the ACA where it has been very successful. OH the GOP may say something mean, stupid and untrue about me if I support all these things that work. It's disgusting.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
If that's actually the case, then liberals kind of suck. Or at least they have a bad habit of sucking on issues where you might have expected them to be good.
People keep telling me that global warming is a real phenomenon that stands to impose very large costs on the earth's population, and I believe them. But then many of those same people seem to think that gas prices should be low. That makes absolutely no sense. If you think global warming is a serious problem, then the logical conclusion is that gas prices, along with other fossil fuels, should be much more expensive than they currently are. That's the whole point of cap-and-trade systems or carbon taxation -- to force the price of fossil fuels up to the point that they include their external costs.
Republicans may be goofballs for denying AGW, but at least they're consistent about it. If you think AWG is just a giant conspiracy by, well, somebody, then you might as well double-down and root for cheap gas too. It doesn't make any internal sense to see low gas prices as a victory when you think burning gasoline contributes to global climate change.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
This is a complete lie that only a partisan zealot would believe. You're ignoring the realities that most people are getting screwed over (much higher prices, much higher deductibles, etc..) by it.
Successful?
Last edited by a moderator:
NutterButter
Footballguy
You have #'s to back that up. I could see prices going up (they've been going up for years) but to say they're much higher for most people seems like a stretch. I don't know anyone that even applies to. At least people aren't particularly vocal about it and if they were getting screwed over that badly, I'd expect them to be vocal.
NutterButter
Footballguy
The big downside I see to lower gas prices is that it discourages investment in alternative energies. But at the same time, I feel the government should be the big driver of that and hopefully lower gas prices leads to a stronger economy which leads to more tax revenue for more government investment.
Maelstrom
Footballguy
You are both using extreme viewpoints to support your preconceived views. The ACA has been successful, and during that, some people have had to pay higher prices/deductibles. Both statements can be true, when you are speaking about the number of people affected.This is a complete lie that only a partisan zealot would believe. You're ignoring the realities that most people are getting screwed over (much higher prices, much higher deductibles, etc..) by it.
Successful?
- The vast majority of people have noticed little to no difference in their insurance
- Millions of people that didn't have insurance now have it
- People on plans that don't conform to the law have had to switch, sometimes having to pay more
- Medical costs, while still going up, have been going up slower than they were before the law was implemented
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This is just a wild a hunch on my part, but I think Mitt Romney campaigned against the ACA. At the same time, I seem to recall him being connected to a similar piece of legislation when he was governor of MA. Maybe, just maybe, that's what NCC was talking about.This is a complete lie that only a partisan zealot would believe. You're ignoring the realities that most people are getting screwed over (much higher prices, much higher deductibles, etc..) by it.
Successful?
NutterButter
Footballguy
That seems to be the exact opposite of what Max is sayingYou are both using extreme viewpoints to support your preconceived views. The ACA has been successful, and during that, some people have had to pay higher prices/deductibles. Both statements can be true, when you are speaking about the number of people affected.This is a complete lie that only a partisan zealot would believe. You're ignoring the realities that most people are getting screwed over (much higher prices, much higher deductibles, etc..) by it.
Successful?
There are definitely some things that can be fixed and amended to make the law better, and it hasn't been painless for all Americans. But it's also been fairly successful at the same time.
- The vast majority of people have noticed little to no difference in their insurance
- Millions of people that didn't have insurance now have it
- People on plans that don't conform to the law have had to switch, sometimes having to pay more
- Medical costs, while still going up, have been going up slower than they were before the law was implemented
NCCommish
Footballguy
Are you ever right about anything? The ACA has been successful. It isn't perfect, and really I want single payer, but it is doing what it set it to do. Cost increases are decelerating. Premium costs are more stable than they have been in quite some time. Many small rural hospitals were literally saved by the ACA. Many uninsured are now insured. Millions in fact. Only a partisan zealot would poo -poo all that and claim that it hasn't been successful..This is a complete lie that only a partisan zealot would believe. You're ignoring the realities that most people are getting screwed over (much higher prices, much higher deductibles, etc..) by it.
Successful?
Maelstrom
Footballguy
Yes, I believe that his position uses individual cases being used to try to say that is the experience for everyone, where that is absolutely not the case. It's easy to make a story about Joe and Sally having to pay 20% more for healthcare, particularly in our current media environment. It's much harder to make a story about the millions of people for whom things haven't changed that people will care to listen to.That seems to be the exact opposite of what Max is sayingYou are both using extreme viewpoints to support your preconceived views. The ACA has been successful, and during that, some people have had to pay higher prices/deductibles. Both statements can be true, when you are speaking about the number of people affected.This is a complete lie that only a partisan zealot would believe. You're ignoring the realities that most people are getting screwed over (much higher prices, much higher deductibles, etc..) by it.
Successful?
There are definitely some things that can be fixed and amended to make the law better, and it hasn't been painless for all Americans. But it's also been fairly successful at the same time.
- The vast majority of people have noticed little to no difference in their insurance
- Millions of people that didn't have insurance now have it
- People on plans that don't conform to the law have had to switch, sometimes having to pay more
- Medical costs, while still going up, have been going up slower than they were before the law was implemented
SHIZNITTTT
Footballguy
1.70
I think next week they will pay me to fill up. #### YOU OBAMA!
Give me back my HIGH GAS PRICES!!! MERICA!
#handsupfreegas
I think next week they will pay me to fill up. #### YOU OBAMA!
Give me back my HIGH GAS PRICES!!! MERICA!
#handsupfreegas
Das Boot
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
I'm going to let the ACA debate go and just focus on the economy. How is what is happening now just completely overlooked?This is a complete lie that only a partisan zealot would believe. You're ignoring the realities that most people are getting screwed over (much higher prices, much higher deductibles, etc..) by it.
Successful?
If this were happening with a Rep president running the show FOX and conservatives would be creaming themselves non stop.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well I can tell you speaking from a state that just went through a race with a Democratic Senator who both ran to and away from Pres. Obama at the same time.
Does everyone have a memory hole when it comes to Obama and gas prices and what went on in 2008 and 2012? Obama ran on saying that high gas prices were here to stay and that we should use it as an opportunity to leapfrog or transition to alternative energies, to consider higher/more gas taxes, and to find ways to reduce domestic consumption.
At some point, his Energy Secretary actually suggested we should find a way to settle in at gas prices akin to those in Europe?
Cut to 2012, Obama actually expanded drilling permits and stood aside from the fracking debate... while at the same time pretending he was really for a "kitchen sink" approach while pushing all energy sources.
Cut to today and oil and gas production is through the roof.
You really think even Obama himself is going to go to the base with these pro oil, pro consumption policies? Are Congressmen supposed to pretend that Obama is for them and bring him in as an example of someone who promotes cheap oil and gas? By the way yes those policies are extremely popular but guess what he stood against these things as did his base. Which brings up the possibility of just that, losing the base.
Just take a look at Mary Landrieu. LA has a long history of pro-oil moderate Democrats, Russell Long, J. Bennett Johnston, John Breaux, but Mary never was quite anything (neither pro-environment nor pro-oil), yet she still found a way to promote her hoped for ascension on the Senate oil/gas/energy committee. Then at the last moment seeing she was losing she tried a hail mary and tried to get the Keystone pipeline extension passed.
Result? Not only did independent and moderates have contempt for her late, sudden turnaround but her own base became disgusted with her turncoat ways.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
The broader more simple message is unemployment down, stock market up and 401k way, way up, economy growing, gas prices down. How do Dems lose with that?
Of course all of these things can be parsed and picked apart as to why the President (or Congress for that matter but will focus on Obama) has no control over these things but the bottom line is he is the man "in charge" when this is happening.
How Dems can lose with this to run on and how they let themselves get boxed in that Obama is the capitalism anti-Christ is pretty amazing. Impressive campaign by the Republicans.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I mean he isn't running on or talking up cheap gas and the fact that Wall Street's humming, why not?
Bill Clinton did pretty well with that by the way.
I will add that the GOP faced this with the end of the Cold War. So Wall Street doesn't need regulating, the environment doesn't need saving, we're ok with oil consumption, and people with 401k's see them getting fat. Is that what the Democrats are running on these days?
Again, sounds like a Clinton campaign to me.
Bill Clinton did pretty well with that by the way.
I will add that the GOP faced this with the end of the Cold War. So Wall Street doesn't need regulating, the environment doesn't need saving, we're ok with oil consumption, and people with 401k's see them getting fat. Is that what the Democrats are running on these days?
Again, sounds like a Clinton campaign to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
Obama is constantly pointing out his achievements and how well the country is doing economically, as he should. Conservatives are on his on his case all the time for taking credit for everything.
The Dems that lost in this last election wouldn't even say they voted for him in some cases. Weird.
The Dems that lost in this last election wouldn't even say they voted for him in some cases. Weird.
Green and Gold
Footballguy
I thought the reason why oil prices were lower is because the Saudis are increasing supply (or at least not reducing it) to price out the American frackers and deep-sea drillers, who need the price per barrel to be high in order to justify the cost. I don't have numbers, but I remember that the Saudi cost per barrel is ridiculously low and can easily deal with these prices until their competition is thinned out.
cstu
Footballguy
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
D##n you Obama!
Maelstrom
Footballguy
Why bring facts to a political debate? That's no fun, you're just supposed to quote talking points back and forth.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
So does reduced demand fit anywhere in this? From your perspective, I mean. Not reality.SaintsInDome2006 said:
fatness
Footballguy
I don't think it does, or will, discourage investement in alternative energies. Consumers and energy providers have learned over the years that oil isn't infinite, that producing it comes at increasing cost, and that prices can go way up as well as down. There's money out there to be made in alternative energies and people and companies will figure out how to do it.NutterButter said:
msommer
Footballguy
I disagree with that ifthe price drop extends for a substantial period. Years. Investors will simply find better ROIs elsewhere which will delay the development in the technology. Unless we are at some tipping point technology wise things will slow down over time as risk seeking money finds better returns. I'm sure research grants will continue for awhile but without any real technology breakthrough fewer funds will go to the engineers that take ideas from academia to real life.
At the same time I don't think we'll ever notice as we simply cannot exist in two time streams simultaneously.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well we know production is up. Demand is down, then? Yes, obviously demand affects prices.
And if demand is down why are imports up?
Last edited by a moderator:
SHIZNITTTT
Footballguy
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
Gas at 1.85 and I have ,40 gas rewards from Safeway--1.45 a gallon?? Nice!!! Going to fill up my Tahoe to the brim.
The Ref
Footballguy
Putin needs 8 more years. This is the Saudis being pissed at Russia for backing Iran and Syria.
NutterButter
Footballguy
The Ref
Footballguy
"It's complicated". I'm sure we had a talk with our friends the Saudis about this along the way. Business loves this as do consumers. What's changed is we actually have a large energy complex that has made billions in investments over the past ten years. They borrowed money from Us banks to do so. With oil under $80 it puts a lot of stress on these investments.
I guess my point is it used to be if oil was $5 a barrel it used to be unilaterally good for us as we were producing any of it. Now when oil is low it hurts us a little bit. Probably not enough to offset the positive impact to the rest of the economy, but it's a consideration.
I guess my point is it used to be if oil was $5 a barrel it used to be unilaterally good for us as we were producing any of it. Now when oil is low it hurts us a little bit. Probably not enough to offset the positive impact to the rest of the economy, but it's a consideration.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
ericttspikes
Footballguy
Romney would be trumpeted as second coming of Reagan, yet with the same data they are still framing Barry as Carter II. Democrats are bad at politics.I'm going to let the ACA debate go and just focus on the economy. How is what is happening now just completely overlooked?This is a complete lie that only a partisan zealot would believe. You're ignoring the realities that most people are getting screwed over (much higher prices, much higher deductibles, etc..) by it.
Successful?
If this were happening with a Rep president running the show FOX and conservatives would be creaming themselves non stop.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
In Baton Rouge for the day. Went to Costco and filled up for $1.65 a gallon. Our long national nightmare continues.
Sand
Footballguy
siffoin
Footballguy
I know a lot of you are smarter than I. And this thread and prices at the pump have me doing some basic research and I'd love to get input on the following.
Mainly I was wondering if anyone could explain this chart from the EIA which shows demand has steadily fallen for the past few years?
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A103600001&f=M
This chart just blows me away. Could it be as simple that the hard fall in price is due to a tipping point between rising supply and falling demand?
In addition do we really think that this drop makes much of an economic benefit to people? And are we looking at the entire picture of what cheap gas at the pump really means? (ie: should we be careful for what we wish for)
Let's say the price maintains a price of $2.00 (from a 2014 average of $3.50) for all of 2015 and you drive 1000 miler per month (12,000 in the year) and average 20mpg. You would use a total of 600 gallons in a year and see a savings of $900 or $75 per month. $900 seems great but that is assuming gas stays real cheap for all of 2015- I'm not sure anyone expects that to happen. But if it does - that would probably mean one of the biggest parts of the "booming" economy would be hammered (high paying jobs in the energy sector).
This article outlines how the energy sector IS the growth of this economy.
http://info.drillinginfo.com/oil-and-gas-jobs-demand-skills-gap/
Here's a few quotes from that article:
"It’s no secret. Millions of oil and gas jobs, and other employment opportunities beyond the energy sector, have been created in the U.S. thanks to the surging shale revolution."
"In just five years, the shale oil and gas boom has increased oil production in the U.S. by approximately 64 percent. As a result, oil and gas now supports almost 10 million workers, and employment growth in the industry is greatly outpacing job creation in other sectors."
"In fact, direct job growth in the oil and gas industry has risen by 40 percent since the beginning of the recession in late 2007. Meanwhile, the overall U.S. economy witnessed an employment decline of roughly 3 percent between 2007 and 2013."
"States benefitting from surging hydrocarbon production are also experiencing job growth at a higher rate than the national average."
If prices maintain sub-$80 for long it makes no financial sense to keep them in operation, and a lot of these job might disappear. Also, we have yet to see the if there will be an impact from these low oil prices reflected in earnings of energy companies and how that would impact the overall stock market.
In addition if that $75 month is such a boon to the economy what about the drag of the rising prices on things like food, healthcare, education, utilities, taxes, and services? Shouldn't those costs be in discussion to the overall "health" of the consumer moving forward?
I'd really appreciate hearing anyone's opinion on these questions/comments.
Mainly I was wondering if anyone could explain this chart from the EIA which shows demand has steadily fallen for the past few years?
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A103600001&f=M
This chart just blows me away. Could it be as simple that the hard fall in price is due to a tipping point between rising supply and falling demand?
In addition do we really think that this drop makes much of an economic benefit to people? And are we looking at the entire picture of what cheap gas at the pump really means? (ie: should we be careful for what we wish for)
Let's say the price maintains a price of $2.00 (from a 2014 average of $3.50) for all of 2015 and you drive 1000 miler per month (12,000 in the year) and average 20mpg. You would use a total of 600 gallons in a year and see a savings of $900 or $75 per month. $900 seems great but that is assuming gas stays real cheap for all of 2015- I'm not sure anyone expects that to happen. But if it does - that would probably mean one of the biggest parts of the "booming" economy would be hammered (high paying jobs in the energy sector).
This article outlines how the energy sector IS the growth of this economy.
http://info.drillinginfo.com/oil-and-gas-jobs-demand-skills-gap/
Here's a few quotes from that article:
"It’s no secret. Millions of oil and gas jobs, and other employment opportunities beyond the energy sector, have been created in the U.S. thanks to the surging shale revolution."
"In just five years, the shale oil and gas boom has increased oil production in the U.S. by approximately 64 percent. As a result, oil and gas now supports almost 10 million workers, and employment growth in the industry is greatly outpacing job creation in other sectors."
"In fact, direct job growth in the oil and gas industry has risen by 40 percent since the beginning of the recession in late 2007. Meanwhile, the overall U.S. economy witnessed an employment decline of roughly 3 percent between 2007 and 2013."
"States benefitting from surging hydrocarbon production are also experiencing job growth at a higher rate than the national average."
If prices maintain sub-$80 for long it makes no financial sense to keep them in operation, and a lot of these job might disappear. Also, we have yet to see the if there will be an impact from these low oil prices reflected in earnings of energy companies and how that would impact the overall stock market.
In addition if that $75 month is such a boon to the economy what about the drag of the rising prices on things like food, healthcare, education, utilities, taxes, and services? Shouldn't those costs be in discussion to the overall "health" of the consumer moving forward?
I'd really appreciate hearing anyone's opinion on these questions/comments.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
Energy is the growth of the economy when prices are increasing, however high energy prices are a huge drag on the rest of the economy since it limits profits and makes other businesses unprofitable so that they fail or are never started in the first place.
To illustrate the point, change it from oil to steel. If the price of steel doubled with the same cost to manufacturers then that would be a great boon to steel producers but it would decimate every industry that requires steel for production.
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/
If you are interested in the oil market and not just conspiracy theories
If you are interested in the oil market and not just conspiracy theories
Lag timeAs oil prices keep plunging, projections of short-term supply and demand balances stay the same - more or less - in the wake of OPEC's decision last month to leave its production target unchanged. Since the last Report, futures benchmark prices fell by another $15/barrel, with Brent last trading near $65/barrel and WTI in the low $60s, 40% below their June highs. Several years of record high prices have induced the root cause of today's rout: a surge in non-OPEC supply to its highest growth ever and a contraction in demand growth to five-year lows.
- Oil prices continued to plunge in November and into early December. The selloff gained pace after OPEC on 27 November decided to keep its output target unchanged. ICE Brent was last trading at a five-year low of $64.05/bbl, down more than 40% from June, and NYMEX WTI at $60.45/bbl.
- The outlook for global oil demand growth for 2015 has been cut by 230 kb/d to 0.9 mb/d on lower expectations for the FSU and other oil-exporting countries. A strong dollar and the lifting of subsidies have so far limited supportive price effects on demand, which is now seen reaching 93.3 mb/d next year, from 92.4 mb/d in 2014.
- Global production fell by 340 kb/d in November to 94.1 mb/d on lower OPEC supplies. Annual gains of 2.1 mb/d were split evenly between OPEC and non-OPEC. Surging US light tight oil supply looks set to push total non-OPEC production to record growth of 1.9 mb/d this year, but the pace is expected to slow to 1.3 mb/d in 2015.
- OPEC crude supply declined by 315 kb/d in November to 30.32 mb/d after Libya's recovery stumbled, but stood 765 kb/d higher year-on-year. The 'call on OPEC crude and stock change' for 2015 has been revised down by 300 kb/d to 28.9 mb/d. The 'call' is expected to decline seasonally by 1.2 mb/d from 4Q14 to 1Q15.
- Global refinery crude throughputs bounced back in November from a seasonal low of 76.8 mb/d in October. The estimate of 4Q14 throughputs has been revised sharply higher since the last Report, to 78 mb/d, as refiners apparently took advantage of healthy margins ahead of a flurry of refinery start-ups expected in early 2015.
- OECD industry stocks built counter-seasonally in October to 2 720 mb, their highest level in more than two years. Stocks ended at a surplus to their five-year average for the first time since March 2013. Rising crude supply and peak seasonal refinery maintenance saw crude stocks surge by 34.4 mb and product stocks fall by 30.7 mb.
Barring a disorderly production response, it may well take some time for supply and demand to respond to the price rout. Here's why.
When it comes to supply, lower oil prices are already slashing producers' spending, but this is more likely to affect medium- and long-term output than short-term supplies. So long is the lead of oil projects that price swings can take time to work their way through to supply. Projects that have already been funded will for the most part go on. Non-OPEC supply growth for 2015 will not come close to its 2014 record, but prices have little to do with it - as things stand now. The short-term outlook for US light tight oil production remains unchanged at current prices as long as producers maintain access to financing. Only in Russia is oil's plunge, along with sanctions and a collapsing currency, likely to trim 2015 production plans. A lower forecast of Russian supply is offset, however, by upward revisions to North American projections in view of the latest production data.
As for demand, oil price drops are sometimes described as a "tax cut" and a boon for the economy, but this time round their stimulus effect may be modest. For producer countries, lower prices are a negative: the more dependent on oil revenues they are and the lower their financial reserves, the more adverse the impact on the economy and domestic demand. Russia, along with other oil-dependent but cash-constrained economies, will not only produce less but is likely to consume less next year.
In oil-importing countries, price effects are asymmetrical: Demand lost to substitution or efficiency gains during prolonged periods of high prices will not come back in a selloff. Several governments are wisely taking advantage of the price drop to cut subsidies. Consumers thus might not see much of the decline. The dollar's strength and oil sale taxes in some countries will also limit the feed-through from crude oil to retail product prices. In the OECD, a tepid economic recovery, weak wage growth and - last but not least - worrying deflationary pressures will further blunt the stimulus of lower prices.
Based on current projections of still relatively weak demand growth and robust supply, global oil inventories would notionally build by close to 300 mb in 1H15 in the absence of disruption, shut-ins or cut in OPEC production. If half of this took place in the OECD, stocks there would approach 2 900 mb and possibly bump against storage capacity limits. The resulting downward price pressure would raise the risk of social instability or financial difficulties if producers found it difficult to pay back debt.
Meanwhile OECD refining margins, which gained from lower feedstock costs in 4Q14, will likely come under downward pressures in 1Q15, as product stocks rebuild in the wake of surprisingly strong runs and as much as 1.4 mb/d of new refining capacity comes online.
Continued price declines would for some countries and companies make an already difficult situation even worse. Today's oil spending cuts will dent supply - just not right now.
NutterButter
Footballguy
Similar threads
