Dems have 10 years of excuses for energy plan

You know. Basically the plan they are saying they need ten years to implement now.

Someone from Republican Senators was very kind and put this together to prove the point.

Oh heck. You might as well watch this one, too.

Comments

  1. J. Strupp says:

    Just a little perspective:

    An increase of 1.5 mil. barrels oil/day is less than 2% of world oil production/day. This would affect gasoline prices by somewhere around 5% or approx. 20 cents/gallon at $4.00/gallon gas. That’s after 10 years of work and assuming the world doesn’t cut production in order to offset our increase in production in order to keep prices at their target (which they can/will do). This is also assuming that we had the ability (from ’02 to’12) to boost production by 1.5 mil. barrels/day and have the refining capacity to deal with the boost in production.

    We can do little to affect gasoline prices from the supply side. It was true in 1992, 2002 and now.

    Obama’s people (and Democrats) are correct to address this problem from, primarily, the demand side. But like dozens of other issues, they can’t articulate and/or execute a viable energy policy which includes increased oil production to lower the trade deficit AND more efficient technologies and alternatives for the long run to reduce demand for oil/gasoline.

  2. Pooey. Ten years have passed without diddly squat to show for it in an energy plan. The issue isn’t going to play, no matter how you spin it.

    Why wasn’t an energy plan as important three years ago?

  3. Randy in Richmond says:

    Forget what the world production of oil is. The US presently produces about 5.5 mil/brls./day. An increase of 1.5 mil. per day would be a domestic increase of about 27%. We import about 9.2 mil./brls/day.

    If the present Democrats had been in charge before, the Hoover Dam, the Interstate System, our space program, TVA, and even mount Rushmore as well as untold other projects would not have been accomplished because it would take X number of years before we could see the benefits. Just another reason to not re-elect Barack Obama.

  4. J. Strupp says:

    “The US presently produces about 5.5 mil/brls./day. An increase of 1.5 mil. per day would be a domestic increase of about 27%.”

    In 1o years. Excellent. This won’t reduce gas prices in any significant way (since oil prices are based on global markets) but it’ll sure be a positive for employment, GDP, tax revenues, reducing the trade deficit.

    “If the present Democrats had been in charge before, the Hoover Dam, the Interstate System, our space program, TVA, and even mount Rushmore as well as untold other projects would not have been accomplished because it would take X number of years before we could see the benefits. ”

    EXACTLY! We need Democrats who have the guts to propose major Fed. expenditures on infrastructure improvements throughout the country. Hell, maybe even subsidize a couple of new refineries in the Baaken. If you think the Democrats need to take a page out of FDR’s book then I’m right there with you.

  5. Now you are just being a brat, J. Strupp. Nice to see you and Randy agreeing, though. *eye roll*

    Why can’t you admit that Democrats lacked vision ten years ago as evidenced in that video montage?

  6. J. Strupp says:

    Democrats lacked vision 10 years ago. And I think their vision is lacking today. There’s no reason that we can’t increase oil exploration and production on Fed. lands (for example) to boost employment and growth in the short run AND promote development of alternative fuels, increase mileage standards, whatever to reduce demand for oil in the long run.

    Likewise, I think that the drill baby drill argument to lower gas prices in the future isn’t a vision at all. It’s a slogan. And this idea, alone, won’t work.

    I guess I don’t know why it has to be either, or.

  7. I know! Instead of drilling or building a reliable pipeline lets sink a ton of money into this solar panel manufacturer I’ve heard about recently. 😉