Which Presidential Candidate is better to tackle GAS PRICES/ENERGY POLICY?

[SentinelMind]

Which candidate is going to stop all these thread from coming on the hype and causing amok!

I don't think any candidate will campaign on that, since they were a run-a-way success...

But, one question I'd like to ask is which candidate is better on tackling gas prices, based on experience and their policy positions.

I didn't vote on other polls because I wanted to see your guys opinion than pushing forth my opinion, but I'm going to say that

John McCain beats Barack Obama hands down, IMO.

John McCain supports allowing states the opportunity to drill in off-shore areas several billion barrels of oil ingrained in US natural resources.

John McCain supports producing several new nuclear reactors, allowing us to compete France in producing an energy resource responsible for 15% of the world's energy?

John McCain supports cutting pork-barrel spending and allow that to fund any transportation necessities cut by reducing gas tax.

Barack Obama's solution is to put a windfall tax on oil companies....tax the investments than millions of Americans use to fund their retirement, 401 ks, IRAs........make it more costly to make a profit and decrease the incentive to invest in energy companies? Thanks, but NO THANKS....

Democrats want to demand foriegn countries to pump more oil, but keep a 30 year ban on pumping oil in our own country.......ridiculous.

Both Obama and John McCain support investing in other energy sources....but Obama wants to roll the die only on energy resources that have not produced the same return of energy as oil? Ridiculous.

Obama wants to cap gas prices....and artificially reduce the supply of gas in this country (companies will not produce gas for loss.......) and create the same energy crisis that afflicted California and Terminated the California Governor Gray Davis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_energy_crisis

I know all the Obamaniacs will just vote Obama in this poll without any thinking, but can you guys provide detailed explaination to me logically why Obama is more equipped to solve energy crisis problems in this country than John McCain, if you believe that?

 

[The Senator]

Why does this need its own thread, when we already have one on gas prices where this topic has been discussed before?

 

[SentinelMind]

cause this one has a poll................ I think that's the precedent around here.

 

[The Senator]

But..... does the poll really matter?

 

[SentinelMind]

yes.

 

[SentinelMind]

it does to me.

 

[DACrowe]

I don't feel like going into long winded arguments right now, so I'll say that drilling off shore will not change anything other than making oil companies richer and destroying natural habitats.. Suffice to say we wouldn't touch the oil for years, when we did there is no guarantee that it will be sold exclusively (or at all) in America and less there is federal legislation. And the next time the government stands up to oil corporations let me know, because it will be one for the history books. And even if it was all sold in the US it would a) only last for several months at the most and b) not change gas prices, as prices are dictated by the separate and unorganized members of POEC looking at any current time to get the most money as possible. As gas is an inelastic good, the price level does not change if the supply increases. You'll pay the price no matter what. So it is in oil companies best interests to maintain whatever the price they've set to correlate with OPEC at the time. They'll just make more money if the oil is coming from the US.

It is as lofty an engineered piece of pandering as the gas tax holiday.

As for exploring alternative resources. I'm not sure they both talk a good game there, but I honestly haven't done the research to know who has the better plan here, but I'm willing to bet given McCain's "tightness" with oil companies and business-friendly economic policies, it's Obama. But I won't vote in this thread.

 

[DACrowe]

In the NYT:

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 20, 2008
Blaming environmentalists for high energy prices, never mind the evidence, has been a hallmark of the Bush administration.

Thus, in 2001 Dick Cheney attributed the California electricity crisis to environmental regulations that, he claimed, were blocking power-plant construction. He completely missed the real story, which was that energy companies — probably some of the same companies that participated in his secret task force, which was supposed to be drawing up a national energy strategy — were driving up prices by deliberately withholding electricity from the market.

And the administration has spent the last eight years trying to convince Congress that the key to America’s energy security is opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling — even though estimates from the Energy Information Administration suggest that drilling in the refuge would make very little difference to the energy outlook, and the oil companies themselves aren’t especially interested in punching holes in the tundra.

But it still comes as a surprise and a disappointment to see John McCain joining that unfortunate tradition.

I’ve never taken Mr. McCain’s media reputation as a maverick seriously, because on most issues, he’s a thoroughly conventional conservative. On energy policy, however, he has in the past seemed to show some independence. Most notably, he voted against the really terrible, special-interest-driven 2005 energy bill, which was backed by the Bush administration — and by Barack Obama.

But that was then.

In his Monday speech on energy, Mr. McCain tried to touch all the bases. He talked about conservation. He denounced the evils of speculation: “While a few reckless speculators are counting their paper profits, most Americans are coming up on the short end.” A weird aspect of the current energy debate, incidentally, is the fact that many of the same market-worshipping conservatives who first denied that there was a dot-com bubble, then denied that there was a housing bubble, are utterly convinced that nasty speculators are responsible for high oil prices.

The item that made news, however, was Mr. McCain’s call for more offshore drilling. On Tuesday, he made this more explicit, calling for exploration and development of the currently protected outer continental shelf. This was a reversal of his previous position, and it went a long way toward aligning his energy policy with that of the Bush administration.

That’s not a good thing.

As many reports have noted, the McCain/Bush policy on offshore drilling doesn’t make sense as a response to $4-a-gallon gas: the White House’s own Energy Information Administration says that exploiting the outer shelf wouldn’t yield noticeable amounts of oil until the 2020s, and even at peak production its impact on oil prices would be “insignificant.”

But what I haven’t seen emphasized is the broader picture: Mr. McCain has now aligned himself with an administration that, even aside from its blame-the-environmental-movement tendencies, has established an extensive track record as the gang that couldn’t think straight about energy policy.

Remember, they didn’t just insist that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators; on the eve of the Iraq war, administration officials were also adamant that regime change in Iraq would add millions of barrels a day to the world oil supply, driving oil prices way down. (In fact, Iraq’s oil output took five years just to recover to preinvasion levels.)

So why would Mr. McCain associate himself with these characters? The answer, presumably, is that it’s a cynical political calculation.

I’m reasonably sure that Mr. McCain’s advisers realize that offshore drilling would do nothing for current gas prices. But they may believe that the public can be conned. A Rasmussen poll taken before Mr. McCain’s announcement suggests that the public favors expanded offshore drilling, and believes (wrongly) that this would lower gasoline prices.

And Mr. McCain may also hope to shore up his still fragile relations with the Republican base. As anyone who has read what’s in his inbox after publishing an article on oil prices can testify, there are many people on the right who believe that all our energy problems have been caused by sanctimonious tree-huggers. Mr. McCain has just thrown that constituency some red meat.

But I very much doubt that Mr. McCain’s gambit will work. In fact, it’s almost certainly self-destructive.

To have a chance in November, Mr. McCain has to convince voters that he isn’t just Bush, continued. Energy policy is one of the areas where he could best have made that case.

Instead, he has ceded the high ground on energy to Mr. Obama, and linked himself firmly to the most unpopular president on record.

 

[Matt]

I vote McCain. While Obama's plans are not bad, most of them do not have any short term relief. It is great that his plans are thinking towards the future, but right now saying things like "By 2024," or "By 2050," isn't really relieving the burden on the middle class. McCain's policy on investing in nuclear energy shows at least some thought towards the future but he is also offering temporary relief for the here and the now.

 

[fifthfiend]

tax the investments than millions of Americans use to fund their retirement, 401 ks, IRAs

Are you talking about the capital gains tax? Because capital gains taxes don't apply to 401Ks or to IRAs.

Is this the line the talk-radio set is pushing for why millionaires shouldn't have to pay taxes on their stock portfolios? Cause if it is, they're lying harder than usual.

 

[fifthfiend]

Also, John McCain's spending-cut plans are powered by fairies and moon-magic.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/mccains_fantasy_war_on_earmark.html

John McCain boasts that he can save $100 billion a year "immediately" by eliminating the so-called earmarks that legislators attach to spending bills to finance pet projects, usually in their home state. But he has refused to say exactly which projects he would cut, and his estimates of the amount of money that is being spent on earmarks have been challenged by independent experts.

The Facts
The Arizona senator is promising to balance the budget by the end of his first term, while simultaneously extending the George W. Bush tax cuts, introducing billions of dollars of new tax cuts of his own, and remaining in Iraq as long as is necessary to stabilize that country. Asked how this miracle will be accomplished, McCain told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News This Week on April 20 that he could come up with $100 billion "tomorrow" by vetoing pork-barrel spending bills.

Here's $100 billion right here for you, George. Two years in a row, the last two years, the president of the United States has signed into law two big spending, pork barrel-laden bills with $35 billion (in earmarks). In the years before that, $65 billion. You do away with those, there's $100 billion right before you look at any agency.
Pouff! $100 billion in taxpayer money! Saved! Just like that! With a flick of the presidential veto pen!

There are a number of problems with this magical budgetary balancing act. First of all, the suspiciously round $100 billion figure is largely a figment of the McCain campaign's imagination. I have not been able to find a single independent budget expert to vouch for it. McCain's economics adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, will not say how the campaign arrived at the figure, other than that it is an extrapolation from various studies, including a 2006 study by the Congressional Research Service available here.

The CRS study breaks down earmarks by different government departments, without giving a global figure. According to Scott Lilly, a former Democratic appropriations staffer now with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the CRS study identifies a total of $52 billion in earmarks for a single year. However, much of this money is tied to items such as foreign aid to countries like Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, that McCain says he will not touch.

By most definitions of the term, the amount of money spent on earmarks is much lower than the CRS study. The Office for Management and the Budget came up with a figure for $16.9 billion in the 2008 appropriation bills. Taxpayers for Commonsense, an independent watchdog group that focuses on wasteful spending, identified $18.3 billion worth of earmarks in the 2008 bills, a 23 per cent cut from a record $23.6 billion set in 2005.

How much of this $18.3 billion could be eliminated is a "difficult question that we have not yet figured out," said Taxpayers for Commonsense vice-president Steve Ellis. The figure includes such items as $4 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which could not be eliminated without halting hundreds of construction projects around the country. Another big chunk goes to military construction, including housing for servicemen and their families, which McCain has also promised not to touch.

Bruce Riedl, a budget analyst with the Heritage Foundation, says it might be possible to eliminate roughly half the expenditure on earmarks every year, i.e. around $9 billion, using the Taxpayers for Commonsense figures. He identified $5 billion in Community Development Block Grant funds, most of which goes to local governments, as a prime target for cuts. Even if earmarks were eliminated altogether, many other expenditures would have to be shifted to other parts of the budget.

Like other analysts, Riedl was mystified by McCain's argument that previous year's earmarks automatically become a "permanent part of the budget." "I don't understand how they come up with that," he told me.

Excluding those programs McCain has promised to preserve, the draconian slashing of earmark expenditures might save around $10 billion a year. But that is still a long way from the $100 billion in savings that McCain says that he can identify "immediately."

The McCain camp now says that the senator never meant to suggest that his proposed $100 billion in savings would all come from earmarks. Holtz-Eakin told me that McCain had simply promised to cut overall spending by around $100 billion. Some of these savings will come from earmarks, some from other parts of the budget. He declined to identify which specific projects would be cut.

Asked whether McCain had misspoke or whether he had been misunderstood in his focus on eliminating earmarks, Holtz-Eakin replied: "a bit of both."

The Pinocchio Test
McCain's talk about eliminating $100 billion a year in earmarks is largely fantasy. His advisers are now promoting a more realistic plan of eliminating $100 billion in overall spending. But it is difficult to take even that promise very seriously given the fact that the senator refuses to identify exactly which projects he will be cut. To use a phrase coined by George H.W. Bush, this is "voodoo economics," based more on wishful thinking than on hard data or carefully considered policy proposals.

 

[kytrigger]

I'd say McCain I guess, but I haen't heard anything from either one that really get me believing in a decent Gas price/energy policy. At least not one that will really help pus out in the near future.

I will say McCain that another reason for McCain to be smart and get Palin as his VP is because of how big a deal the energy policies are becoming for this election. Have them say drilling offshore in america is good, and by having Palin, the Governor of one of he man drilling states support that, it takes a lot of wind out of the anti-driller sails.

 

[fifthfiend]

Obama wants to cap gas prices....and artificially reduce the supply of gas in this country (companies will not produce gas for loss.......) and create the same energy crisis that afflicted California and Terminated the California Governor Gray Davis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_energy_crisis

If you were the kind of person who reads the things he links to, you would have seen that your own link shows that the program you're complaining about was started under Republican Governor Pete Wilson.

I'm not sure what you're arguing for by citing that, unless you're saying you want more ****ty-ass, private-company-enriching, infrastructure-destroying Republican energy schemes.

 

[StorminNorman]

Obama's idea of taxing oil companies more money is one of the most idiotic ideas described in this political season. He offers no solution short term and seems out of touch with the impact gas prices are having on Americans.

A month ago I thought there was no way the Republican Party had a chance to have a successful election (even the election of McCain would not lead to a successful GOP season) - this topic offers the ability. The Democratic Party's refusal to look at drilling as a solution to oil prices is going to start to kill them. They are trapped by enviromental lobbies and the far left - which have hijacked this party. Overwelmingly Americans are supporting and demanding domestic drilling as the short term solution to oil prices - that is horrible news for the DNC. Even more damning is the fact that polls indicate most Americans (correctly) DO NOT blame Oil Companies - that will destroy the Democrat plan of attacking Big Oil and demoning the industry. Whats frightening is that you have idiotic congressmen and women from the left even suggesting the possibility of NATIONALISING oil refineries.

If the Republicans can claim the issue of domestic drilling as their own - which is exactly what they have been trying, successfully I think, to do - the Republicans could turn their political luck around. I could see this issue regenerizing American interest in the GOP.

 

[DACrowe]

I'd say McCain I guess, but I haen't heard anything from either one that really get me believing in a decent Gas price/energy policy. At least not one that will really help pus out in the near future.

I will say McCain that another reason for McCain to be smart and get Palin as his VP is because of how big a deal the energy policies are becoming for this election. Have them say drilling offshore in america is good, and by having Palin, the Governor of one of he man drilling states support that, it takes a lot of wind out of the anti-driller sails.

Please, explain to me how drilling is a viable solution. What evidence do you base this on? Why is drilling a good alternative and how will it lower gas prices or provide any relief to oil addiction to the Middle East anytime soon, if at all?

And how will it curb our oil consumption and increase interest in alternative fuels, as well?

 

[chaseter]

McCain has more of a comprehensive plan as of right now. The big thing with McCain is nuclear plants, lignite coal to gas, more drilling, and pushing for more refineries. Obama supports ethanol (which is one of the most energy ineffecient processes in North America, and litigation on the gas companies. They both support alternative sources like fusion, hydrogen, and other technologies. So in other words, Obama has a bit more concern for the environmentally aspect but with today's huge push to be green it really doesn't matter. So, right now...McCain.

 

[That'ssuper!]

I don't like Obama's socialistic policies for taking away profits which serve as incentives for oil companies. Afterall, if industries feel threatened in the United States or see a much high chance at making profit, they can and will move out. The theme park industry has already begun doing this very same thing. Since prices in the United States have increased, a lot are heading to China, India, Korea, and Dubai. Universal has invested in six new parks in Asia, Busch Gardens has invested its largest historical funds into Dubai. There is becoming a much larger decrease of input to American parks, the same could happen with oil to it's industry if the government expands too much. If the oil companies see their investment threatened they certainly can deliberately under perform and move out. What will happen to oil prices then when there is much more limited supply?

 

[Matt]

I'm not crazy about Obama's "tax high income citizens more and give the tax dollars to lower income families to help with energy costs." I mean, isn't that the exact opposite of the ideals that our country was founded on? It is socialism. Not border-line socialism, just straight forward socialism. The entire foundation of America is it is the land of opportunity. Why are we punishing people for being successful? Why is it their obligation to help low income families? I'm all for government relief programs, but I am also for a flat tax rate. High income citizens already pay more than low income citizens with a flat tax rate. To raise it for a specific group and give it to another group (who have done nothing to earn it) is just wrong.

 

[kytrigger]

Please, explain to me how drilling is a viable solution. What evidence do you base this on? Why is drilling a good alternative and how will it lower gas prices or provide any relief to oil addiction to the Middle East anytime soon, if at all?

And how will it curb our oil consumption and increase interest in alternative fuels, as well?

When did I say that it was a great plan at all? I specifically stated that neither McCain or Obama's policies are really impressive at all. The idea of having Palin to aid in the "drilling" argument is a good idea for McCain, that is what I was referring to.

 

[chaseter]

I'm not crazy about Obama's "tax high income citizens more and give the tax dollars to lower income families to help with energy costs." I mean, isn't that the exact opposite of the ideals that our country was founded on? It is socialism. Not border-line socialism, just straight forward socialism. The entire foundation of America is it is the land of opportunity. Why are we punishing people for being successful? Why is it their obligation to help low income families? I'm all for government relief programs, but I am also for a flat tax rate. High income citizens already pay more than low income citizens with a flat tax rate. To raise it for a specific group and give it to another group (who have done nothing to earn it) is just wrong.

Totally agree and it is a well publicized strategy by the Dems to get the lower middle class vote as the Repubs don't do it to get high class votes. It is extremely stupid and I agree 100%. Why should a succesfull man have to give millions each year in taxes so that (and this is an extreme example) a family of 10 can live better through programs. That and universal healthcare are big turnoffs for me from being democrat.

 

[DACrowe]

I'm not crazy about Obama's "tax high income citizens more and give the tax dollars to lower income families to help with energy costs." I mean, isn't that the exact opposite of the ideals that our country was founded on? It is socialism. Not border-line socialism, just straight forward socialism. The entire foundation of America is it is the land of opportunity. Why are we punishing people for being successful? Why is it their obligation to help low income families? I'm all for government relief programs, but I am also for a flat tax rate. High income citizens already pay more than low income citizens with a flat tax rate. To raise it for a specific group and give it to another group (who have done nothing to earn it) is just wrong.

It is also a possibility worth considering in boosting our economy and countering a recession we are currently in. I mean our government under Bush has given so many tax breaks and deals to the higher-income individuals and helped make them richer, just repealing those tax cuts and maintaining them for middle class would be a good idea. Why do those who don't need the money get the tax breaks and push the costs on the middle class? Idealism aside, it is a bad way to build an economy as the last seven years have proven....and thee Reagan era...and Hoover's policies to get out of the Great Depression...and the policies under Harding and Coolidge that got us in the Great Depression...you know trickle down/supply side-only economics has historically never worked?

 

[DACrowe]

When did I say that it was a great plan at all? I specifically stated that neither McCain or Obama's policies are really impressive at all. The idea of having Palin to aid in the "drilling" argument is a good idea for McCain, that is what I was referring to.

Ah. Sorry. I just hate when people support this idea simply based on thinking "more oil is good."

 

[chaseter]

^More oil is good??? What is about to happen, is that they are about to flood the market and make a killing and gas will go back down a little. What is even more surprising is that our current government won't do anything about it.

 

[SentinelMind]

If you were the kind of person who reads the things he links to, you would have seen that your own link shows that the program you're complaining about was started under Republican Governor Pete Wilson.

I'm not sure what you're arguing for by citing that, unless you're saying you want more ****ty-ass, private-company-enriching, infrastructure-destroying Republican energy schemes.

It was a bad idea regardless of who started it....do you judge the economical and historical impact of piece of legislation by the little D or R sitting next to the politicians name? The fact of the matter is Obama wants to continue a policy similar the price caps scheme that created the California energy crisis.

 

[SentinelMind]

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_...ess/just_47_oppose_nationalizing_oil_industry

Well, guess what...a plurality of Democrats are interested in nationalizing the oil industry...(37%), beating out NO and Unsure.

Only a slim majority of Americans oppose (No to nationalization) this, beating Yes and Undecided.

It doesn't say Obama's decision, but this disturbs me if Obama opens his ears to those who advocate this.....