Well believe it or not, we don't have an oil shortage. We have oil, but the refineries are the bottleneck right now. So McCain's plan is going to be about as effective as the "Don't fill up your tank this Wednesday"

We get less than 10% of our oil from the middle east. The majority comes from Venezuela. So blaming the inflated prices on the middle east is kinda disingenuous. Though it is at least in part to blame for it. shipping fuel from the US to the middle east for our military has helped drive up the cost. That's something that just seems too silly to believe. We are shipping fuel from the US to our military in Iraq... Iraq is selling us oil that they ship to the US.... Um anyone else see anything silly about that?

The blame goes all around for high prices though.

Oil Companies: For overinflated prices. They get the first blame, but are pretty low on the blame scale.

The Government: For oddball restrictions on building refineries, emissions standards that increased emissions and decreased fuel efficiency.

The auto manufacturers: For making vehicles that drank gas for so long.

The Consumer: Ultimately it's OUR fault. We use the fuel. We buy the big SUV that gets 3 GPM. We refuse to take public transportation. We are the ones PAYING the high price.

We get less than 10% of our oil from the middle east. The majority comes from Venezuela. That's not what this (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm) says.

PS: Thanks NAFTA! :)

So blaming the inflated prices on the middle east is kinda disingenuous. Though it is at least in part to blame for it. shipping fuel from the US to the middle east for our military has helped drive up the cost. That's something that just seems too silly to believe. We are shipping fuel from the US to our military in Iraq... Iraq is selling us oil that they ship to the US.... Um anyone else see anything silly about that? I guess I'd need to see a source first. *shrugs*

The Consumer: Ultimately it's OUR fault. We use the fuel. We buy the big SUV that gets 3 GPM. We refuse to take public transportation. We are the ones PAYING the high price.QFT

Oil prices are based on speculation in a world market. War in an oil producing area causes instability within the region and increases the real and perceived threat to the supply of oil, which in turn increases the speculated price because the future supply is less predictable. Since the world market sets the price, where the U.S. receives its oil from does not matter; unless some country is willing sell it to us at a discounted rate. If we were producing 100% of our own oil, the price would still be the same. That is if we were still competing in the world market without artificial government restrictions (companies not allowed to sell to higher bidder outside of U.S. and government had price barriers) or other government subsidizes.

This price increase I blame mainly on the American people for allowing our government to destabilize an oil-producing region more than necessary to accomplish the goal of going after the people that attacked us on September 11, 2001. Everyone in Washington with half a brain knew this would happen considering it happened before during the first Gulf War. Only difference is this time we are staying a little longer and there is no end in sight, there we go with not having a predictable future again. The unknown is always bad for oil prices.

Thanks for the chart. Seems rather strange that we're getting more from Canada than any other single source.
As for the source, on my other statement, Meh I heard it on the news. CNN a few weeks or months back. Had something to do with contracted fuel delivery blah blah... I'm sure you'll enjoy the opportunity to take a jab at Cheney because of his former Halliburton ties.

@mimartin: Well even without the war, we would have seen severe market instability. The war pretty well localized it mainly to oil. As you know the stock market likes stability. With the Republicans controlling both houses of congress and the white house, they were passing a bunch of laws. The market HATES that. It tends to do much better when there is a lame duck president that cannot get anything done because congress won't let him/her. Stagnation in the government makes for a thriving market. Part of why the Clinton presidency was so good was that congress hated him. He didn't like them much either. Basically nothing got done.

Yes, and I was only speaking to oil and the effect the uncertainty of supply is having on the price of oil.

The economy is not much better; the price of diesel is having a profound effect on products including food and every other product that uses truckers for delivery or production. I really love today’s talking heads on television saying that the economy isn’t so bad because the job loss rate was less than predicted. We are still talking about 260,000 people losing their jobs in the last 4 months. Most networks also fail to mention the estimates built into the report; if overoptimistic data are used it could inflate the numbers of jobs (construction sector). Found it funny that Fox News was the only one I saw report that. I thought they were the conservative network; guess Ann Coulter really doesn’t want McCain elected.

Yeah, love that they remove food and energy costs from the equation when trying to calculate inflation.

"Guess what guys! No recession. The economy grew by 0.6% last month! ...except were not counting the stuff that's breaking everyone's balls right now"

Yeah, love that they remove food and energy costs from the equation when trying to calculate inflation.If they would have done that in the 1970s, I wonder if Jimmy Carter would have gotten a second term. If so, most Americans may have never heard of supply side economics or the better description “voodoo economics" today.

Found it funny that Fox News was the only one I saw report that. I thought they were the conservative network; guess Ann Coulter really doesn’t want McCain elected.
It's not too suprising when you take into account that Fox likes to make CNN look bad. And quite honestly, I think most of the conservative talking heads don't like McCain. They just dislike him less than the ones with the D next to their name. I like him for admitting his failings(ironically the reason I like Obama as well). I'd rather have someone in the White House that knows he isn't divine or blessed by God, or has delusions of being perfect. So far the only candidate that would really scare me if she were to get into office is Clinton.

You know, it was hard enough admitting that I agreed with George Bush on something but now I have to agree with Dick Cheney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060201856.html?nav=rss_email/components) too? This is unacceptable.

You know, it was hard enough admitting that I agreed with George Bush on something but now I have to agree with Dick Cheney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060201856.html?nav=rss_email/components) too? This is unacceptable.

Ouch! That must really make you question yourself. I'd take a good hard look in the mirror just to make sure :D

_EW_

Ouch! That must really make you question yourself. I'd take a good hard look in the mirror just to make sure :DThat's right, rub it in :dozey: :)

I do have to wonder though, this pretty much disappeared weeks ago. Why would Cheney all of a sudden resurrect this issue? Maybe to counter the "Bush/McCain = McSame" rheoric by trying to show that Obama agrees with Bush/Cheney? Help me out here.

That's right, rub it in :dozey: :)

I do have to wonder though, this pretty much disappeared weeks ago. Why would Cheney all of a sudden resurrect this issue? Maybe to counter the "Bush/McCain = McSame" rheoric by trying to show that Obama agrees with Bush/Cheney? Help me out here.

I'm afraid I can't. Any of us who believe the McSame rhetoric won't be swayed by a trivial Dick comment. If that's the reason then I think the attempt is futile.

As to what he's trying to accomplish, if not that: I can't even begin to guess.

_EW_

I'm afraid I can't. Any of us who believe the McSame rhetoric won't be swayed by a trivial Dick comment. If that's the reason then I think the attempt is futile. Meh, but what about casual voters (you know, the ones that still think Obama is a muslim)? People with busy lives and not much interest in politics only need the headlines to be persuaded. But at the same time, would such a ploy be too nuanced for this audience? Probably. Unless it is intended to be the first volley of a larger campaign. Ugh. Can't quite wrap my head around it.

As to what he's trying to accomplish, if not that: I can't even begin to guess.Glad I'm not alone.

You know, it was hard enough admitting that I agreed with George Bush on something but now I have to agree with Dick Cheney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060201856.html?nav=rss_email/components) too? This is unacceptable.

The Lord moves in mysterious ways.... ;P

Clinton called for a vote on this issue on May 2nd, so I'm not sure that it could have been characterized as actually disappearing weeks ago. Brought up weeks ago (if you call a month 'weeks ago'), maybe, but not disappeared.

The Puerto Rican primary was yesterday--that might have been part of the reason for bringing it up.

I don't think that the casual voters will even be affected. I'm also not sure why the Puerto Rican primary would have affected it. Could you clarify, Jae?

_EW_