ENERGY,ENERGY,ENERGY!

If we start to have gas prices going in the 4-5$ range again..ADIOS !  ???

Discuss among yourselves.....

I thought you were going to say "Change, we need" (but I doubt there are that many grammar pedants in the US)

In other words, you think the main determining factor of the people's view of Obama's presidency is something over which he has no direct control?  It would be a shame if the people were that unthinking.  But not really that surprising.

Well,  I just read that he will authorize states like Vermont and several others to adopt the California milage and emission standards - that is, direct the EPA to grant the necessary waivers.

ENERGY,ENERGY,ENERGY!

If we start to have gas prices going in the 4-5$ range again..ADIOS !   ???

Discuss among yourselves.....

What are the other two words?
:D

I'm certain the price of a gallon of gas will be higher in four years than it now.  Perhaps it will be double or triple today's price.  Hope not.  Whether it's $3.00 or $6.00, you can bet your bottom dollar--or just your bottom--that Obama's opponents will blame him for it.  Heck, they blamed him for the recession as soon as he was elected!  What will sink Obama in 2012? 
No Economic Improvement.
Those are your three words, and if we're no better off in the fall of 2012 than we are today, Obama will richly deserve the bum's rush.

Well,  I just read that he will authorize states like Vermont and several others to adopt the California milage and emission standards - that is, direct the EPA to grant the necessary waivers.


I hope another state has 'more sense' than to follow CA..the inside scoop s CA has been taken for a 'ride' by the greenies who are letting CA use nuclear energy from surrounding states BUT DO NOT BUILD ANYTHING LIKE THAT THERE!

Then to blame it on the pollution and needing clean air ...try getting rid of the coal plants first which put out THOUSANDS times more pollution for humans to intake!

I know of someone at the hearings when the same environmentalists appeared at the hearings to put the cancerous MTBE into the gas and it jacked up unnecessary fuel costs and 10 years or so later they came out saying it was awful get rid of it...after millions perhaps billions were spent ...so now they are curtailing emissions from cars and trucks to divert the real issues..and they are taking other suckers with them.

Well,  I just read that he will authorize states like Vermont and several others to adopt the California milage and emission standards - that is, direct the EPA to grant the necessary waivers.


I agree with his decision, as a matter of "States rights".  There is no reason why a given state should not be allowed to enact air quality rules more stringent than Federal rules.

Gas prices do affect the public's attitude.  Still, I think Obama and his successors will need to direct America toward alternative energy sources, since oil is running out.

Gas prices do affect the public's attitude.  Still, I think Obama and his successors will need to direct America toward alternative energy sources, since oil is running out.


Clearly

Gas prices do affect the public's attitude.  Still, I think Obama and his successors will need to direct America toward alternative energy sources, since oil is running out.


We demand the ease and comfort of pumped gasoline and the personal passenger car.  We might not get it.  We might, which would be nice; however, are we prepared to change the way we live if we can't get cheap oil?  I don't mean just neat stuff like trading kilowatt hours and plugging the car battery into the garage wall, I mean radical changes in the physical infrastructure, such as reverting from the suburbs back to walkable cities.

I don't think so.  It takes a hell of a lot of money to do that and we just flushed all ours down the commode!

Change...that didn't happen.

We demand the ease and comfort of pumped gasoline and the personal passenger car.  We might not get it.  We might, which would be nice; however, are we prepared to change the way we live if we can't get cheap oil?  I don't mean just neat stuff like trading kilowatt hours and plugging the car battery into the garage wall, I mean radical changes in the physical infrastructure, such as reverting from the suburbs back to walkable cities.

I don't think so.  It takes a hell of a lot of money to do that and we just flushed all ours down the commode!


I don't really think it's a choice in the long run....  it's a mandate.  Globalization will slowly lower our standard of living to make more room for the rising consumption of the Third World.

I don't really think it's a choice in the long run....  it's a mandate.  Globalization will slowly lower our standard of living to make more room for the rising consumption of the Third World.


When I was a boy we assumed the future would keep getting better and better.  By 2009 we'd have colonies on the moon and on Mars.  We would have personal robots doing our chores and the work week would be 11 hours!

Sure, there were some folks talking about the greenhouse effect, the population bomb, and impending resource scarcity, but it was easy--even tempting--to dismiss them as hippie ascetics and ivory tower naysayers ("The nattering nabobs of negativism" as Agnew phrased it)!  Don't worry.  There's not a single problem a little technology can't solve!

The problem is, guys my age who grew up in that culture are now starting to run the country.  We feel just as entitled to the shimmering good life of the future as our fathers did!  Well, it's going to be a gritty uncomfortable ride, so clench your teeth and hang on!
::)

Gas prices do affect the public's attitude.  Still, I think Obama and his successors will need to direct America toward alternative energy sources, since oil is running out.
Oil is not running out currently they have it sitting out in tankers, boats, and ports because there is so much oversupply currently. I agree however with you we need more alternative energy resources in the future but now was not the right time to sign that bill that Obama currently signed because we are in the middle of a reccesion. Also, GM and Chrysler have no cash to spend for this extra emissions that Obama just signed for for those 13 states. Honda and Toyota are in the red losing money now. So what happens is the car manufacturers pass the extra emmisions cost over to the new car buyer. Say you by a 2009 Chevy Malibu for 20,000 dollars well the same car/came bodystyle will cost you 23,000  dollars on a 2011 Malibu because of the extra emissions.

Obama lost points with me on this.

What are the other two words?
:D

I'm certain the price of a gallon of gas will be higher in four years than it now.  Perhaps it will be double or triple today's price.  Hope not.  Whether it's $3.00 or $6.00, you can bet your bottom dollar--or just your bottom--that Obama's opponents will blame him for it.  Heck, they blamed him for the recession as soon as he was elected!  What will sink Obama in 2012?  No Economic Improvement.
Those are your three words, and if we're no better off in the fall of 2012 than we are today, Obama will richly deserve the bum's rush.
No, nobody blamed Obama for the reccession.  Yes, I agree though if the economy doesn;t show major improvement by the 2012 presidential elections obama does deserve the bumrush as you are saying.

I hope another state has 'more sense' than to follow CA..the inside scoop s CA has been taken for a 'ride' by the greenies who are letting CA use nuclear energy from surrounding states BUT DO NOT BUILD ANYTHING LIKE THAT THERE!

Then to blame it on the pollution and needing clean air ...try getting rid of the coal plants first which put out THOUSANDS times more pollution for humans to intake!

I know of someone at the hearings when the same environmentalists appeared at the hearings to put the cancerous MTBE into the gas and it jacked up unnecessary fuel costs and 10 years or so later they came out saying it was awful get rid of it...after millions perhaps billions were spent ...so now they are curtailing emissions from cars and trucks to divert the real issues..and they are taking other suckers with them.

I agree with you Congress always listens to the environmentalists but not to the rest of the American people.

I agree with his decision, as a matter of "States rights".  There is no reason why a given state should not be allowed to enact air quality rules more stringent than Federal rules.
I don't agree with it at all. As a guy who follows the auto industry this is a nightmare for every automaker. For example for those 13 affected states automakers might have to limit SUV sales in those folllowing states. Also, automakers have to set their inventories accordingly to demand. Its gonna be hard to gauge SUV demand with these emissions/fuel rules for those 13 states. What is dealers in those affected 13 states run out of SUVs and can;t sell anymore SUV's for a month or something because of the fuel rules?

I don't think so.  It takes a hell of a lot of money to do that and we just flushed all ours down the commode!
Yeah exactly we are spending milions on bailouts and more bailouts to come on money government doesn't even have. We are gonna kill our currency if government keeps on doing this and giving the banks bailouts.

I don't agree with it at all. As a guy who follows the auto industry this is a nightmare for every automaker. For example for those 13 affected states automakers might have to limit SUV sales in those folllowing states. Also, automakers have to set their inventories accordingly to demand. Its gonna be hard to gauge SUV demand with these emissions/fuel rules for those 13 states. What is dealers in those affected 13 states run out of SUVs and can;t sell anymore SUV's for a month or something because of the fuel rules?


That is the beauty of the constitution and our Federal system.

If a state wants to pass a law within its jurisdiction, who is to say that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT knows better?  If a state wants to pass a law that is stupid, there is nothing wrong with that.

Your post assumes that the Fed always knows best.  Quite frankly the Federal government has been screwing the pooch on gas regs for years and that is precisely why our country is overrun with SUV's.

What California is saying is "either build fuel efficient vehicles or stay the hell out of California".  And I am fine with that approach.

No, nobody blamed Obama for the reccession.  Yes, I agree though if the economy doesn;t show major improvement by the 2012 presidential elections obama does deserve the bumrush as you are saying.


Rush Limbaugh did, speaking of BM Rush.

Rush Limbaugh did, speaking of BM Rush.


Obama shouldn;t even listen too Rush. Obama even said something about Rush back in retaliation. Obama would be smart just too tune out Rush.

That is the beauty of the constitution and our Federal system.

If a state wants to pass a law within its jurisdiction, who is to say that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT knows better?  If a state wants to pass a law that is stupid, there is nothing wrong with that.Your post assumes that the Fed always knows best.  Quite frankly the Federal government has been screwing the pooch on gas regs for years and that is precisely why our country is overrun with SUV's.
What California is saying is "either build fuel efficient vehicles or stay the hell out of California".  And I am fine with that approach.
Well a stupid law is a stupid law too me. To me there is something wrong if a state passes a stupid law.

I didn;t say that they federal government always knows nest.

I agree our country is overrun with SUVs but its people's free right to buy them. I am an anti-SUV person myself but its a free market other people should be able to buy what they want too.

Obama shouldn;t even listen too Rush. Obama even said something about Rush back in retaliation. Obama would be smart just too tune out Rush.


I agree.  The only influence Rush has is the influence the government gives him.  The GOP took the House in 1994 for for the first time in forty years.  They made Rush an honorary member.  I don't know why he wanted that because he kept talking about about how government was bad.  Anyway, one of the Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) criticized Rush (suggested Limbaugh, Hannity, and Gingrich didn't have to answer to anyone and could throw bricks for publicity) and the next day was groveling before Limbaugh and apologizing.  That's one way of giving Rush undue influence.

The President censuring him is another way...and even more effective in this political climate. 

Clinton's Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, a brilliant man, sent a letter to the same gaggle of fascist talk show hosts asking them to please tone down the hateful rhetoric for it has real-world consequences when the economy is in crisis and people are hurting.  I'm surprised Dr. Reich doesn't understand that when you call these guys mean and hurtful they get off on it. 

The one thing all those clowns are terrified of is a return of the Fairness Doctrine.  They get hysterical and call it "censorship."  What really frightens them is competition.  Even if their ratings outpaced the opposition by 100 points, the oppostion would still have a voice on the right-wing networks and they don't want to have to compete!
:o