Start A Petition

WARNING!!!: "Nine Dollar Gas" Projection - Video

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: obama, obama-administration, president-obama, politics, government, democrats, republicans, congress, u.s., america, americans, gas-prices, oil, interesting, video, youtube, business, society, consumers, economy, economic-crisis, energy, ethics )

- 2237 days ago -
The American Energy Alliance reminds consumers that President Obama and his administration are intentionally boosting the price of gasoline at the pump, by restricting our U.S. access to existing natural resources. Think About It!

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


PinkMindy E (567)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 8:57 am

Let's face it, Americans are not just going to quit driving and using other petroleum products because of the 'Hope for Change' pipe-dream, so where else will all of this road of consumer manipulation bring US to!?!?

Via: "The Anti-Obama Nation" - Daily Reading News Journal @ Facebook

Al Baars (27)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 9:29 am
Thats nice, except it's not based on a shred of reality.

PinkMindy E (567)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 10:03 am

Saith Al F. ... LOL!!!

Q: What's new and trending across the Internet via Facebook???

A: THIS!!! =========>

Outrageous Gas Prices @ Facebook

PinkMindy E (567)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 10:15 am

Hi Jason, I just sent you a Green Star of Appreciation, because I feel sorry for your narrow-minded rudeness, as I scratch my head and in wonder as to who the Hell you think you are!?!? ...

Ohh, no one of great importance I take it!! ...

LOL!!!; however everyone has the right to harbor a politically misguided self-protectionist opinion, as I believe you do.



Roger S (14)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 11:30 am
The American Energy Alliance (AEA) was founded in 2008 by Thomas Pyle, who previously lobbied on behalf of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association and Koch Industries ( )

More BS from the Pink.

PinkMindy E (567)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 11:36 am

I see a few dwindling-by-the-day hardcore Socialist Liberals and/or hardcore Democrats have landed upon this comment-line, because they are the only foolish ones left to support Obama's reign of contempt against the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ...

Which shall condemn America to end up on fire inside THEIR hand-made septic tank!!!!!! ...

And only Sheeple now follow their course of national self-destruction.


PinkMindy E (567)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 11:41 am

P.S.: I just noticed the above sharing icons show 53 Recommends already, and I have only just begun to fight!

Please recommend and share this across the Internet, as our network is currently in mass production of this video ... TY!!!

"The Anti-Obama Nation" - Daily Reading News Journal @ Facebook

We hope to see you there and please share us with a friend!

PinkMindy E (567)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 1:05 pm

P.S.S.: Hey, take a look at my last comment time/date stamp and see the difference between that comment and this new comment I'm typing now ... That Quick ... 89 Recommends, which is a difference of 36 Recommends in that short amount of time between these two comments!

Therefore I submit to you that this Care2 article is WHITE ROCKET HOT!!!!!

I would like to thank all of our network partners across the Internet for recommending and sharing this too.

PinkMindy E (567)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 1:06 pm

... And I haven't even shared this article with my 572 friends yet, so please keep that in mind.

divergent revolution (309)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 2:37 pm

PinkMindy E (567)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 2:53 pm

We cannot afford 4 More Years of President Obama's brand of economics wallowing in national stagnation!

Obama = 1% Rich Elite and he doesn't really care about anyone or anything other than His own personal monetary agenda $$$$$$$$$$$.

Alice C (1797)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 3:24 pm
Glad I got feet ! : )

MmAway M (505)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 3:38 pm
Thank you Pink!!! It's already $4.55 where I live...

Alice you are way funny!!!

Agnes N (703)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 4:12 pm
Thanks Pink..
we talked about company are fool
to give power to gass...they already know every country have problem pollution, enviroment and race to fight for gass
they don't stand up to help all people in the selfish and fool they are we know should stop dill it Destroy The Environment

Jae A (316)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 4:33 pm
SO what's the problem, this is too be expected when the GOP Congress is dead set against any regulating of the industry or any other for that matter. Ya get what those you support want..and right's the 'rightwing' who doesn't want regulations...and that folks is FACT.

Maybe it will soon rise to $20 a gal. folks will finally get off the dirty energy band wagon once and for all..but for now it's a great bashing thread in favor of dirty energy ...which is what Obama bashing on it only accomplishes. Can't understand why you rightwinges can't look a the big picture now and then on anything political/econmic wise etc....perhaps the Black Prez keeps you focused on the narrow blind side of things.. Whatever...carry on and forget why these prices are as they are in reuglations and speculators running the show...but hey , why waste a good tabloid bashing topic huh !!

Jae A (316)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 4:38 pm
Even thought Obama is not the problem nor the solution, for once I'd really like to see something from a rightcrazywinger on a thread that shows just a glimmer of their having a reality check as to 'the big picture' in this nation currently...but then, that' s no doubt just my wishful thinking. Guess some folks prefer dividing the people instead of uniting keep up with the Carl Rove type tactics/threads but I really don't think they will work this time. We'll have no solutions and we'll still have Obama in the White house due to few if any on the rightwing side having any focus other than taking Obama down..which is not going to happen and obviously so due to the alternatives ...once again.

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 4:40 pm
There are a few issues:
First, as of December 2008 the price of gas was about $1.50 per gallon. Earlier that year, it went as high as $3.50. Double the cost from before his presidency doesn't mean much. $4 per gallon, on the other hand, does. Back home,I've seen gas prices as high as ~ $6 per gallon without immediate catastrophe.

Second, the real issue isn't the price consumers pay at the pump. The really nasty cost is the increased price of freight that gets passed along to consumers. Can anybody here name what is by far the bulkiest type of item which has to be shipped in enormous quantities over long distances constantly? If you guessed food, give yourself a pat on the back. Going out to eat, buying different foods, etc. can have a serious effect on its price, but if you eat primarily the staple foods of the region where you live, the price is constant for everyone. That means the passed on price-increases cost the poor a larger proportion of their income. While sizes of houses vary dramatically, I understand the same goes to some degree for heating-oil. For a president whose support-base is pushing for the wealthy to pay more to save the poor money, his energy-policies certainly add some regressive costs to the economy.

Sadly, John G. is right: They couldn't stop screwing up no matter how hard they try. They don't know how to do the job. I wish it was just a conspiracy.

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 5:04 pm
Hi Jae,

Here's the problem with regulating away the rise in the price of oil:
It sounds crazy, but with even about a 10% drop, the oil-industry ceases to be profitable. With even a 7% drop, parts of it would have to be integrated into others as they cease to be profitable. All those billions of dollars they get comes from selling a whole lot of their product, not from arbitrarily raising the price. Even with somewhat less than that, companies would make tiny profits for their investments, and the danger of an accident or unintended side-effect of some policy would make the profit cease to justify the risk. If that gets sustained for very long, investors would pull their money, companies would sell their assets, and the industry would collapse. If you read my previous post, you'll see what impact that would have on urban food-supplies. I would consider mass-starvation to be a problem. That's the big picture that right-wingers see.

The numbers from 2007 may shed light on the effect of speculation. At that time, most people did not expect a recession to lower the U.S. dollar and thus raise the price of oil in the U.S., and the surge in Iraq was seen as having pretty much stabilized the unstable part of the Middle East. Nobody would speculate at that point because times were good and nobody expect prices to go up soon.
Then, without speculation, the companies' profit-margins were roughly double what they are now. that means, probably, if speculation could be eliminated, that would double the potential for regulations to reduce the price of oil, maybe even all the way up to a 20% drop before making oil unprofitable, which is still less than a dollar per gallon reduction. That's not a whole lot in the big picture.

Essentially, regulations may suffice to reduce the price of oil a bit without causing a disaster, unless investors see the extra regulations as implying that more are on the way which would destroy the profitability of their investments (which they have in the past, delaying the recovery from the 2008 bust).

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 5:56 pm
Good to know. Thanks.

Jonjon Hoy (146)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 6:03 pm
This is BOGUS......! Common Sense will tell you that when this happens that Big Oil will be hurting too cause no one will be buying gas period. Not only that, countless businesses will close down cause people want be buying and the businesses want be able to afford to restock. Not to mention car sales will be Bankrupt again worse than they were this last time. How much POT are they smoking to make this Bogus jump in prices cause their heads sure aren't on their shoulders and somewhere else.

john hall (28)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 7:26 pm
Jae A. Picture this obama wants to try to get rid of the nasty crude oil/ fossil fuels and bring in the green energy but heres the big problem the people like you who want green energy wont buy the damn thing . you refuse to buy solar now there bankrupt you refuse to buy electric cars now there bankrupt or going under and you know why because of people like you the dingy democrats/liberals who wanted it so bad . So why dont you and your kind stop the whinning and buy the damn green energy and if that would happen maybe the costs of crude oil/fossil fuels would be afforable for me .

Jerry B (128)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 9:38 pm
Noted..thanks Mindy!

Jae A (316)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 10:52 pm
LOL...great comments...Fact is it's dirty energy and we need to find alternatives instead of using it for all kinds of reasons...dependent on it ,is profitable of course...break that and people will use alternatives or the prices will come down and stablize...but here again..the industry got greedy and we are the ones paying for the mistakes/greed.
Gas prices have been a political issue since I was a young adult..doubt Obama had anything to do with those times. Apparently some of you are not old enough to remember back as far as the 70's.. if not farther back..or don't want to one.

No regulation...relying on foreign oil for higher profites.....leads to a free for all pricing and price fixing,speculating etc. ...for that profit at high cost to consumers. If we had no alternatives I could see more logic to the arguments that have been stated above but since we do...lots of B.S. floating for excuses and defending what has done far too much damage to our world period..the earth and people on it alike.

The oil companies decided years ago it was more 'profitable' to not drill , just buy elsewhere and refine in a big way they did this to themselves as far as having to pay more now. Stupidity nor greed is an excuse when it comes to peoples health, the health of the planet, economic cost for families etc.. But hey, if that's what people find ok for themselves as long as they can blame one man, not the industry nor the reasons it is an on going issue for decades now....long long before Obama came into view...go for it and pay higher and higher without justification other than they , the oil companies brought a lot ...if not all ...of this having to pay more themselves..on themselves...and we the consumers should not keep paying for their mistakes any differently than we should the bankers and their mistakes and or greed.. Bush Family has more influence in the oil industry than Obama and Congress does have the power to regulate things...with balance that the scary image commented on above by another doesn't happen. There is middle ground where neither 'end of the stick' the extreme, has to be the only focus in my opinion.

No doubt if I had the oil stocks my dad did I wouldn't be on the side of the other consumers either but I don't, no do I work for an oil company..which would also play into my personal thoughts about them I would imagine. Lots of 'reasons' for not wanting to look at the entire picture of this oil issue...from the past to the present before they believe they feel the oil companies have no choice, or that Obama is the it's nothing newl.

Jae A (316)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 11:07 pm
Some one in a comment above said they were paying $1.50 for gasoline in 2008...we were paying $1.99 in Dec. 2007 in both Utah and areas of California...and it has been going up ever since. But hey, drill in the oceans and our national parks and run pipe lines from one end of the nation to the other so they can refine it and sell it over seas/back to whoever...but not for us , just their profits ...if ya want, but dollars to donuts you are not going to ever be paying less until you let them know..not just a president...but congress and the oil companies that you've had enough.
We are paying $4.59 for our fuel for our gasoline currently and I for one have had enough of their bogus economic crash excuses if we don't pay their price and keep giving them a free for all industry with no regulation,and without balance for a safety net for the economy and peoples wallets as a whole, not just for stock holders and company employeement. Alternatives....New industry, new jobs , new stocks , new profits for the generations of the future..

Jae A (316)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 11:10 pm
....and yes I mentioned a few of the reasons that 'some' are defending this continuing screwing of everyone who is not oil industry related...employees/stock holders etc. for a good obvious one I would think.

Jae A (316)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 11:14 pm
lol..."who is not'' ..on my a Bushism made it to my fingers....but I still don't care for their family oil businesses nor their profits...but I do care that I am paying as much as we are for gasoline due to their 'stupidy/greed/or just short sighted business decissions for short term profits a long time ago...which we are still paying for today.

Jae A (316)
Saturday April 7, 2012, 11:27 pm
Once again folks, I am no fan of he is the best candidate that the GOP has running so I don't look for any thing price wise from the oil industry to change anytime soon. It's either aternatives, over that of too late to drill baby drill or pipe it through the heartland for the profits of someone other than the people in the u.s. who are not connected to their dirty product that's the man made cancer of our earth and the people who live on it.

Blaming Obama is just guan justification for a product we need to 'phase out of lives a.s.a.p., just as with neclear energy, in my opinion, for the reasons I've stated but it makes for great political divide doesn't it ~.

Jae A (316)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 12:37 am
Lots of reasons I suppose that others send green stars to people...personally I do it so they can use the credits they stand for, for their personal choice of causes from the care2 list they go to. Oh each their own Pink.

Jae A (316)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 12:43 am
....and yes, I also give them to say thank you as suggest by the care2 site, as an equal reason for giving them...a 'twofer' ya can say. The more the better for everyone as long as they are actually used for their choice of causes I say, from whoever...

As I each their own Pink.

Cam V (417)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 12:43 am
Here in British Columbia we now pay over six bucks a gallon for gas. My kids cross the border and buy it in Washington State for about four bucks. Most of the cost here in Canada is TAX ..... they say we will be looking at about eight bucks a gallon over the next year.

The irony of this whole thing is the gas they go to buy in Washington State probably comes from Canada as we are your biggest supplier. We are being screwed no matter which side of the border we live on.

DRILL HERE IN NORTH AMERICA AND DRILL NOW! It will boost our economies and make the pirates come after the oil and gas in a humane manner instead of raping third world countries the way they have been. You want to be taxed to rudy death like we are here in Canada then keep increasing your reliance on social programs America. They will fall apart in the end as ours are and all the taxes in the world will never save them.

You can do better than Obama. Fiscal restraint MUST be returned to America if your Republic is to survive. It is worth the fight and worth saving.


Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 12:50 am
Hi Jae,

Unfortunately we still really have no viable alternatives for transportation. Electric cars still run into trouble if they have to go uphill or maintain highway speeds for very long. The fact is that we cannot build a light, affordable battery with an energy-density close to that of a tank of oil. Other substances, like natural gas, either demand unaffordable containment or are explosions waiting to happen. Then there is ethanol which also lacks the energy-density of gasoline. The same goes for portable generators. As for manufacturing plastic, just for reasons of chemistry there is no alternative to oil at all, nor could there ever be. I would love to phase out oil as a fuel and just use it for plastics, but we just don't have the necessary technology to replace it yet.

With the technology available at the time, the U.S. environmental lobby which has grown stronger since then, and the higher purchasing power of the U.S. dollar in poor countries, it really was much, much cheaper just to drill elsewhere and then refine in the U.S. Refinement has to be done near markets because while as crude all the material can be shipped together, the refined products must be shipped separately, and that separation gets very expensive over long distances. Now they want to extract from U.S. shale, but the government responds to environmentalists' demands and does not sell them extraction-rights.

There are two problems with Congress trying to go "middle of the road" like you suggested that they should: First, like I pointed out earlier, that "middle of the road" price-control brings a potential saving of strictly less than ~ $1.00 per gallon. Second, political pressures and infighting keep it from functioning rationally. Congress cannot handle things that delicately, especially on a political indicator like the price of oil.

Jae A (316)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 12:53 am
That's what many have been saying since Reagan ran our debt to the highest ever at the time...and then came Dubya..and now...well it's out of control when it comes to D.C.

OIL bad. Coal Bad. Nuclear the worst. Drill all ya want but no different than Obama , he's not the solution and nor is drilling too little too late. Bad decission by the oil industry in the u.s. years/decades ago to buy from others and refine here and reap the extra profits ..wel that was until the shotsightedness wore off and the dependency set in...and then...came drill baby drill as the what they didn't do when they could have ..and's too late to drill to bring own prices..they'll only raise them more telling us it's due to drilling cost and on and on...they've used all the same excuses in the past and for once I wish the big picture would be seen by a majority of people, but that isn't the case obviously.

Arild Gone for now (174)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 2:28 am
Don't complain,thats about what we pay here in Europe.

PinkMindy E (567)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 5:23 am


Those who are long-term Care2 members will note, that the ones who are claiming this to be BOGUS are the very same hardcore Socialist Liberals and hardcore Democrats who continue to protect Obama without justifiable cause.

There is far more existing evidence to support Obama as being anything but a patriotic American, therefore Obama is Un-American!

Go here to see just to view a few Anti-Obama articles and also see how these same Socialist/Democrats are attempting to levy media-censorship upon an unsuspecting public: ==========>

PinkMindy's Care2 News

"Is Obama Crazy Like A Fox Or Just Stuck On Stupid?" @ Impeach Obama Campaign

Or even better, go here: ========>

"The Anti-Obama Nation" @ Facebook

Only sheeple mindlessly follow trends just to keep friends!!! -- Are you one???

. (0)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 7:52 am
The answer of cheap, universal, available energy has existed since 1932 when Tesla demonstrated the simplicity with which scalar wave energy could be used. That is every facet of life from powering our citiies to driving. There is no need for fossil fuels. The problem is that the" international masters" if you will have stated that they will not release it until every last drop of oil has been harvested and every last red cent squeezed from the consumer. They have technology to mine and drill that will allow them to minimize the footprint ecologically but it is expensive. They are not willing to minimize profit. Your destruction and mine is part of their global plan.

PinkMindy E (567)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 8:43 am



PinkMindy E (567)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 10:00 am

Let's face it Jason R., it's your perception against the opposite to be true, so therefore let us allow our viewers to decide and drop all of that Nazi-style media censorship you're attempting to cram!

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 10:51 am
Hi Jae,

There are two issues: First, even with drilling-costs, the taxes would make the difference. Nigeria imposes 80% excise-tax on oil, and Saudi Arabia imposes 80% income-tax on foreign-owned companies which sell hydrocarbons. There would be a price-boost as drilling goes before production, but I don't know how much of that boost's duration is due to issues of practicality and how much is due to regulation. We will find out as the Israeli government seriously wants to encourage shale-extraction in its territory and cuts the red tape, reducing the pre-production time to roughly that permitted by practicality.

Speaking of issues of practicality and regulation, a quick peek at Wikipedia (and verification of its sources) will show that it cost half as much for Romania to get an American company to build a nuclear station there as it does in the U.S., despite all excise-taxes, shipping costs, and the company's unfamiliarity with the region. That tells me that half of the capital costs of nuclear power, the primary part of the cost, is due to excessive regulations. After cutting that out, nuclear would get very cheap. As for safety, I recommend that you take a good look at the numbers on its safety-record and check the problems with the model used to overestimate the damage (the Linear non-Threshold model). The worst accident in the industry's history was at Fukushima (I don't consider Chernobyl, where the safety-systems were turned off, technicians ignored, and the reactor was deliberately overheated, to have been an accident), and its direct, verifiable, death-toll was .... 0. There is a suspicion that it would substantially increase the risk of cancer, but I have yet to see a non-LNT estimate. (LNT overestimated it at about 1000.) The danger is vastly overstated.

I don't like the foreign dependency either. What I think should be done is shale drilling with the new, vastly cleaner, methods, and a massive expansion in nuclear power, using the waste-heat to convert coal to syncrude (synthetic oil).

Hi Jason,
Do you really trust the chair of the DNC to give an accurate account of Republicans? It is her job to try to make them look bad so, in an election year, she will say anything she deems plausible to do so.

PraetorianSlv US (24)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 5:29 pm
Obama must go. He intends on bringing down this Nation and setting himself up for a global seat in the new international system of banking, laws and control.

Taking our money for fuel is a means to control our disposable income. It is the step to control of our wealth.

How funny that some think this is a left/right issue. Amazingly clueless.

Jae A (316)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 6:02 pm
The pro oil side sure do like to go with the nuclear as alternative don't they. That being said, the oil in reserve is for emergency use,and with the middle east supply in a constant state of instability it is probably best not to use it as a price reduction thing. That should be something the oil companies do for the nation, as a whole, on their own, which of course their greed gets in the way of doing any in return for the wealth via the nations people. They would / could still be making 'huge' profits at $3.50 a gal. , possibly even lower would still bring in ample profits. Many in Ca. risk the drug war in Mexico to cross over for gasoline...much less than on this side..apparently they ...Mexico .....have plenty of oil if their price is any indication .........yes I know, cheap labor ..government control etc. , so if the oil companies want to stay out of the hands of government control they need to do what's right for the nation for a change. That's change we could all use and it can come from outside of the White House/Congress/D.C.

Sheryl G (363)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 8:51 pm
High Oil Prices Must Be Subject of Criminal Investigation A Fair and Balanced Report

Billie C (2)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 10:37 pm
obama said before he was elected he wanted 5.00 gas. he thinks he can force green energy. the problem is green energy isn't ready for us and we can't afford what's out there.
obama doesn't care if this country goes under only that it doesn't before the election. notice how everything he's put in like obamacare doesn't fully kick in until after this election. if his kill off america plans take off to soon then he can't become our first king. the man has no intention of ever leaving the white house. he's been working hard with nato and arabs to make sure it happens. get him out of there.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday April 8, 2012, 10:46 pm
Hi Jae,

Having oil-companies hold oil in reserve means having them artificially drive up the price when times are good to bring it down when times are tough. You know exactly how people would respond during the good times. They would call for action against speculation, exactly as you did here. Seeing as how it is apparently impossible to satisfy people who want to blame them for trouble, why should they bother with costs related to storing large amounts of oil and risk a leak?

It's not a matter of liking oil and nuclear. It's a matter of understanding energy-production. I prefer hydro and geothermal, but they have limited potential, depending on geography. Wind just lacks the energy-density to ever be useful on a large scale, Solar also has limited potential, and the huge setups which need to stay very transparent (in the case of PV cells) or reflective (in the case of solar thermal power) just aren't durable or cheap enough to be anything close to cost-effective. Tidal power is an engineering nightmare.

They can, and must, sell cheaper in Mexico because labour and infrastructure are cheaper. The final distribution-costs, which are a significant part of the total cost, are lower (and the target market is poorer).

KS Goh (0)
Monday April 9, 2012, 5:41 am
Thanks for the article.

Arielle S (313)
Monday April 9, 2012, 8:28 am
Oh, guys, you know we can't confuse Pink with facts -
We had the answer some time ago ("Who Killed the Electric Car?") but there was no money in that for the big oil companies or the speculators on Wall Street. We are energy hogs in this country and big whiners when we have to pay for that energy. Blaming Obama is akin to blaming McDonalds because you eat french fries every day and gain weight...

PinkMindy E (567)
Monday April 9, 2012, 11:27 am

It's better to prepare for the worst and hope for the best, rather than the other way around!

"The Anti-Obama Nation" - Daily Reading News Journal - Important Updates Now Available @ Facebook Headquarters

Fiona Ogilvie (565)
Monday April 9, 2012, 8:17 pm
And as this happens, the House is keeping the vote to fund public transportation from taking place.

Patricia N (9)
Tuesday April 10, 2012, 12:49 am
Gas in Ontario right now is about $1.40 per about $3.20 gal. or around that as it's hard to compute litres into gallons. Supposed to be 3 litres to a gallon approximately. In some parts of Europe I think it's $4.00 and $5.00 a gallon. It can only go up so we need alternative transportation....high-speed trains, subways, etc. I'm not effected as much as I'm a senior and do not use the car every day. The people who really feel the pinch are those who bought houses far away from their work. My suggestion to all you young people out near your work even if you have to rent. Don't buy a house way out in the suburbs. If you do make sure it's near some kind of transportation.....train, subway or bus....that gets you to work. It's bound to be cheaper. Or carpool. If you buy a house, make sure it's near stores that meet all your needs to you aren't driving ten miles to buy a loaf of bread. Sorry for's the mother in me that can't help it.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday April 10, 2012, 9:57 am
Drilling is up 400%. We are NOW exporting more than we're importing. Oil prices have been coming down.

How long can you believe the liars?

The Science of Fox News: Why Its Viewers are the Most Misinformed
Authoritarian people have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox, where they can find affirmation and escape factual challenges to their beliefs.
April 8, 2012 |

Editor's note: This is an excerpt from Chris Mooney’s new book The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality.

In June of last year, Jon Stewart went on air with Fox News’ Chris Wallace and started a major media controversy over the channel’s misinforming of its viewers. “Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers?” Stewart asked Wallace. “The most consistently misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.”

Stewart’s statement was factually accurate, as we’ll see. The next day, however, the fact-checking site PolitiFact weighed in and rated it “false.” In claiming to check Stewart’s “facts,” PolitiFact ironically committed a serious error—and later, doubly ironically, failed to correct it. How’s that for the power of fact checking?

There probably is a small group of media consumers out there somewhere in the world who are more misinformed, overall, than Fox News viewers. But if you only consider mainstream U.S. television news outlets with major audiences (e.g., numbering in the millions), it really is true that Fox viewers are the most misled based on all the available evidence—especially in areas of political controversy. This will come as little surprise to liberals, perhaps, but the evidence for it—evidence in Stewart’s favor—is pretty overwhelming.

My goal here is to explore the underlying causes for this “Fox News effect”—explaining how this station has brought about a hurricane-like intensification of factual error, misinformation and unsupportable but ideologically charged beliefs on the conservative side of the aisle. First, though, let’s begin by surveying the evidence about how misinformed Fox viewers actually are.

Based upon my research, I have located seven separate studies that support Stewart’s claim about Fox, and none that undermine it. Six of these studies were available at the time that PolitFact took on Stewart; one of them is newer.

The studies all take a similar form: These are public opinion surveys that ask citizens about their beliefs on factual but contested issues, and also about their media habits. Inevitably, some significant percentage of citizens are found to be misinformed about the facts, and in a politicized way—but not only that. The surveys also find that those who watch Fox are more likely to be misinformed, their views of reality skewed in a right-wing direction. In some cases, the studies even show that watching more Fox makes the misinformation problem worse.

So with that, here are the studies.

Iraq War

In 2003, a survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland found widespread public misperceptions about the Iraq war. For instance, many Americans believed the U.S. had evidence that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been collaborating in some way with Al Qaeda, or was involved in the 9-11 attacks; many also believed that the much touted “weapons of mass destruction” had been found in the country after the U.S. invasion, when they hadn’t. But not everyone was equally misinformed: “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news,” PIPA reported. “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” For instance, 80 percent of Fox viewers held at least one of three Iraq-related misperceptions, more than a variety of other types of news consumers, and especially NPR and PBS users. Most strikingly, Fox watchers who paid more attention to the channel were more likely to be misled.

Global Warming

At least two studies have documented that Fox News viewers are more misinformed about this subject.

In a late 2010 survey, Stanford University political scientist Jon Krosnick and visiting scholar Bo MacInnis found that “more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, with less trust in scientists, and with more belief that ameliorating global warming would hurt the U.S. economy.” Frequent Fox viewers were less likely to say the Earth’s temperature has been rising and less likely to attribute this temperature increase to human activities. In fact, there was a 25 percentage point gap between the most frequent Fox News watchers (60%) and those who watch no Fox News (85%) in whether they think global warming is “caused mostly by things people do or about equally by things people do and natural causes.”

In a much more comprehensive study released in late 2011 (too late for Stewart or for PolitiFact), American University communications scholar Lauren Feldman and her colleagues reported on their analysis of a 2008 national survey, which found that “Fox News viewing manifests a significant, negative association with global warming acceptance.” Viewers of the station were less likely to agree that “most scientists think global warming is happening” and less likely to think global warming is mostly caused by human activities, among other measures.

Health Care

In 2009, an NBC survey found “rampant misinformation” about the healthcare reform bill before Congress — derided on the right as “Obamacare.” It also found that Fox News viewers were much more likely to believe this misinformation than average members of the general public. “72% of self-identified Fox News viewers believe the healthcare plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly,” the survey found.

By contrast, among CNN and MSNBC viewers, only 41 percent believed the illegal immigrant falsehood, 39 percent believed in the threat of a “government takeover” of healthcare (40 percentage points less), 40 percent believed the falsehood about abortion, and 30 percent believed the falsehood about “death panels” (a 45 percent difference!).

In early 2011, the Kaiser Family Foundation released another survey on public misperceptions about healthcare reform. The poll asked 10 questions about the newly passed healthcare law and compared the “high scorers”—those that answered 7 or more correct—based on their media habits. The result was that “higher shares of those who report CNN (35 percent) or MSNBC (39 percent) as their primary news source [got] 7 or more right, compared to those that report mainly watching Fox News (25 percent).”

"Ground Zero Mosque”

In late 2010, two scholars at the Ohio State University studied public misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”—and in particular, the prevalence of a series of rumors depicting those seeking to build this Islamic community center and mosque as terrorist sympathizers, anti-American, and so on. All of these rumors had, of course, been dutifully debunked by fact-checking organizations. The result? “People who use Fox News believe more of the rumors we asked about and they believe them more strongly than those who do not.”

The 2010 Election

In late 2010, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) once again singled out Fox in a survey about misinformation during the 2010 election. Out of 11 false claims studied in the survey, PIPA found that “almost daily” Fox News viewers were “significantly more likely than those who never watched it” to believe 9 of them, including the misperceptions that “most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring” (they do), that “it is not clear that President Obama was born in the United States” (he was), that “most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses” (it either saved or created several million), that “most economists have estimated the healthcare law will worsen the deficit” (they have not), and so on.

It is important to note that in this study—by far the most critiqued of the bunch—the examples of misinformation studied were all closely related to prominent issues in the 2010 midterm election, and indeed, were selected precisely because they involved issues that voters said were of greatest importance to them, like healthcare and the economy. That was the main criterion for inclusion, explains PIPA senior research scholar Clay Ramsay. “People said, here’s how I would rank that as an influence on my vote,” says Ramsay, “so everything tested is at least a 5 on a zero-to-10 scale.”

Politifact Swings and Misses

In attempting to fact-check Jon Stewart on the subject of Fox News and misinformation, PolitiFact simply appeared out of its depth. The author of the article in question, Louis Jacobson, only cited two of the studies above--“Iraq War” and “2010 Election”—though six out of seven were available at the time he was writing. And then he suggested that the “2010 Election” study should “carry less weight” due to various methodological objections.

Meanwhile, Jacobson dug up three separate studies that we can dismiss as irrelevant. That’s because these studies did not concern misinformation, but rather, how informed news viewers are about basic political facts like the following: “who the vice president is, who the president of Russia is, whether the Chief Justice is conservative, which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives and whether the U.S. has a trade deficit.”

A long list of public opinion studies have shown that too few Americans know the answers to such basic questions. That’s lamentable, but also off point at the moment. These are not politically contested issues, nor are they skewed by an active misinformation campaign. As a result, on such issues many Americans may be ill-informed but liberals and conservatives are nevertheless able to agree.

Jon Stewart was clearly talking about political misinformation. He used the word “misinformed.” And for good reason: Misinformation is by far the bigger torpedo to our national conversation, and to any hope of a functional politics. “It’s one thing to be not informed,” explains David Barker, a political scientist at the University of Pittsburgh who has studied conservative talk-radio listeners and Fox viewers. “It’s another thing to be misinformed, where you’re confident in your incorrectness. That’s the thing that’s really more problematic, democratically speaking—because if you’re confidently wrong, you’re influencing people.”

Thus PolitiFact’s approach was itself deeply uninformed, and underscores just how poorly our mainstream political discourse deals with the problem of systematic right wing misinformation.

Fox and the Republican Brain

The evidence is clear, then—the Politifact-Stewart flap notwithstanding, Fox viewers are the most misinformed. But then comes the truly interesting and important question: Why is that the case?

To answer it, we’ll first need to travel back to the 1950s, and the pioneering work of the Stanford psychologist and cult infiltrator, Leon Festinger.

In his 1957 book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Festinger built on his famous study of a doomsday cult called the Seekers, and other research, to lay out many ramifications of his core idea about why human beings contort the evidence to fit their beliefs, rather than conforming those beliefs to the evidence. That included a prediction about how those who are highly committed to a belief or view should go about seeking information that touches on that powerful conviction.

Festinger suggested that once we’ve settled on a core belief, this ought to shape how we gather information. More specifically, we are likely to try to avoid encountering claims and information that challenge that belief, because these will create cognitive dissonance. Instead, we should go looking for information that affirms the belief. The technical (and less than ideal) term for this phenomenon is “selective exposure”: what it means is that we selectively choose to be exposed to information that is congenial to our beliefs, and to avoid “inconvenient truths” that are uncongenial to them.

If Festinger’s ideas about “selective exposure” are correct, then the problem with Fox News may not solely be that it is actively causing its viewers to be misinformed. It’s very possible that Fox could be imparting misinformation even as politically conservative viewers are also seeking the station out—highly open to it and already convinced about many falsehoods that dovetail with their beliefs. Thus, they would come into the encounter with Fox not only misinformed and predisposed to become more so, but inclined to be very confident about their incorrect beliefs and to impart them to others. In this account, political misinformation on the right would be driven by a kind of feedback loop, with both Fox and its viewers making the problem worse.

Psychologists and political scientists have extensively studied selective exposure, and within the research literature, the findings are often described as mixed. But that’s not quite right. In truth, some early studies seeking to confirm Festinger’s speculation had problems with their designs and often failed—and as a result, explains University of Alabama psychologist William Hart, the field of selective exposure research “stagnated” for several decades. But it has since undergone a dramatic revival—driven, not surprisingly, by the modern explosion of media choices and growing political polarization in the U.S. And thanks to a new wave of better-designed and more rigorous studies, the concept has become well established.

“Selective exposure is the clearest way to look at how people create their own realities, based upon their views of the world,” says Hart. “Everybody knows this happens.”

Indeed, by 2009, Hart and a team of researchers were able to perform a meta-analysis—a statistically rigorous overview of published studies on selective exposure—that pooled together 67 relevant studies, encompassing almost 8,000 individuals. As a result, he found that people overall were nearly twice as likely to consume ideologically congenial information as to consume ideologically inconvenient information—and in certain circumstances, they were even more likely than that.

When are people most likely to seek out self-affirming information? Hart found that they’re most vulnerable to selective exposure if they have defensive goals—for instance, being highly committed to a preexisting view, and especially a view that is tied to a person’s core values. Another defensive motivation identified in Hart’s study was closed-mindedness, which makes a great deal of sense. It is probably part of the definition of being closed-minded, or dogmatic, that you prefer to consume information that agrees with what you already believe.

So who’s closed-minded? Multiple studies have shown that political conservatives—e.g., Fox viewers--tend to have a higher need for closure. Indeed, this includes a group called right-wing authoritarians, who are increasingly prevalent in the Republican Party. This suggests they should also be more likely to select themselves into belief-affirming information streams, like Fox News or right-wing talk radio or the Drudge Report. Indeed, a number of research results support this idea.

In a study of selective exposure during the 2000 election, for instance, Stanford University’s Shanto Iyengar and his colleagues mailed a multimedia informational CD about the two candidates—Bush and Gore—to 600 registered voters and then tracked its use by a sample of 220 of them. As a result, they found that Bush partisans chose to consume more information about Bush than about Gore—but Democrats and liberals didn’t show the same bias toward their own candidate.

Selective exposure has also been directly tested several times in authoritarians. In one case, researchers at Stony Brook University primed more and less authoritarian subjects with thoughts of their own mortality. Afterwards, the authoritarians showed a much stronger preference than non-authoritarians for reading an article that supported their existing view on the death penalty, rather than an article presenting the opposing view or a “balanced” take on the issue. As the authors concluded: “highly authoritarian individuals, when threatened, attempt to reduce anxiety by selectively exposing themselves to attitude-validating information, which leads to ‘stronger’ opinions that are more resistant to attitude change.”

The psychologist Robert Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba has also documented an above average amount of selective exposure in right wing authoritarians. In one case, he gave students a fake self-esteem test, in which they randomly received either above average or below average scores. Then, everyone—the receivers of both low and high scores—was given the opportunity to say whether he or she would like to read a summary of why the test was valid. The result was striking: Students who scored low on authoritarianism wanted to learn about the validity of the test regardless of how they did on it. There was virtually no difference between high and low scorers. But among the authoritarian students, there was a big gap: 73 percent of those who got high self-esteem scores wanted to read about the test’s validity, while only 47 percent of those who got low self-esteem scores did.

Authoritarians, Altemeyer concludes, “maintain their beliefs against challenges by limiting their experiences, and surrounding themselves with sources of information that will tell them they are right.”

The evidence on selective exposure, as well as the clear links between closed-mindedness and authoritarianism, gives good grounds for believing that this phenomenon should be more common and more powerful on the political right. Lest we leap to the conclusion that Fox News is actively misinforming its viewers most of the time—rather than enabling them through its very existence—that’s something to bear in mind.

Disinformation Passing as “News”

None of which is to suggest that Fox isn’t also guilty of actively misinforming viewers. It certainly is.

The litany of misleading Fox segments and snippets is quite extensive—especially on global warming, where it seems that every winter snowstorm is an excuse for more doubt-mongering. No less than Fox’s Washington managing editor Bill Sammon was found to have written, in a 2009 internal staff email exposed by MediaMatters, that the network’s journalists should:

. . . refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

And global warming is hardly the only issue where Fox actively misinforms its viewers. The polling data here, from the Project on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) are very telling.

PIPA’s study of misinformation in the 2010 election didn’t just show that Fox News viewers were more misinformed than viewers of other channels. It also showed that watching more Fox made believing in nine separate political misperceptions more likely. And that was a unique effect, unlike any observed with the other news channels that were studied. “With all of the other media outlets, the more exposed you were, the less likely you were to have misinformation,” explains PIPA’s director, political psychologist Steven Kull. “While with Fox, the more exposure you had, in most cases, the more misinformation you had. And that is really, in a way, the most powerful factor, because it strongly suggests they were actually getting the information from Fox.”

Indeed, this effect was even present in non-Republicans--another indicator that Fox is probably its cause. As Kull explains, “even if you’re a liberal Democrat, you are affected by the station.” If you watched Fox, you were more likely to believe the nine falsehoods, regardless of your political party affiliation.

In summary, then, the “science” of Fox News clearly shows that its viewers are more misinformed than the viewers of other stations, and are indeed this way for ideological reasons. But these are not necessarily the reasons that liberals may assume. Instead, the Fox “effect” probably occurs both because the station churns out falsehoods that conservatives readily accept—falsehoods that may even seem convincing to some liberals on occasion—but also because conservatives are overwhelmingly inclined to choose to watch Fox to begin with.

At the same time, it’s important to note that they’re also disinclined to watch anything else. Fox keeps constantly in their minds the idea that the rest of the media are “biased” against them, and conservatives duly respond by saying other media aren’t worth watching—it’s just a pack of lies. According to Public Policy Polling’s annual TV News Trust Poll (the 2011 run), 72 percent of conservatives say they trust Fox News, but they also say they strongly distrust NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN. Liberals and moderates, in contrast, trust all of these outlets more than they distrust them (though they distrust Fox). This, too, suggests conservative selective exposure.

And there is an even more telling study of “Fox-only” behavior among conservatives, from Stanford’s Shanto Iyengar and Kyu Hahn of Yonsei University, in Seoul, South Korea. They conducted a classic left-right selective exposure study, giving members of different ideological groups the chance to choose stories from a news stream that provided them with a headline and a news source logo—Fox, CNN, NPR, and the BBC—but nothing else. The experiment was manipulated so that the same headline and story was randomly attributed to different news sources. The result was that Democrats and liberals were definitely less inclined to choose Fox than other sources, but spread their interest across the other outlets when it came to news. But Republicans and conservatives overwhelmingly chose Fox for hard news and even for soft news, and ignored other sources. “The probability that a Republican would select a CNN or NPR report was around 10%,” wrote the authors.

In other words Fox News is both deceiver and enabler simultaneously. First, its existence creates the opportunity for conservatives to exercise their biases, by selecting into the Fox information stream, and also by imbibing Fox-style arguments and claims that can then fuel biased reasoning about politics, science, and whatever else comes up.

But at the same time, it’s also likely that conservatives, tending to be more closed-minded and more authoritarian, have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox, where they can find affirmation and escape from the belief challenges constantly presented by the “liberal media.” Their psychological need for something affirmative is probably stronger than what’s encountered on the opposite side of the aisle—as is their revulsion towards allegedly liberal (but really centrist) media outlets.

And thus we find, at the root of our political dysfunction, a classic nurture-nature mélange. The penchant for selective exposure is rooted in our psychology and our brains. Closed-mindedness and authoritarianism—running stronger in some of us than in others—likely are as well.

But nevertheless, it took the emergence of a station like Fox News before these tendencies could be fully activated—polarizing America not only over politics, but over reality itself.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday April 10, 2012, 6:10 pm

In summary, then, the “science” of Fox News clearly shows that its viewers are more misinformed than the viewers of other stations, and are indeed this way for ideological reasons. But these are not necessarily the reasons that liberals may assume. Instead, the Fox “effect” probably occurs both because the station churns out falsehoods that conservatives readily accept—falsehoods that may even seem convincing to some liberals on occasion—but also because conservatives are overwhelmingly inclined to choose to watch Fox to begin with.

At the same time, it’s important to note that they’re also disinclined to watch anything else. Fox keeps constantly in their minds the idea that the rest of the media are “biased” against them, and conservatives duly respond by saying other media aren’t worth watching—it’s just a pack of lies. According to Public Policy Polling’s annual TV News Trust Poll (the 2011 run), 72 percent of conservatives say they trust Fox News, but they also say they strongly distrust NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN. Liberals and moderates, in contrast, trust all of these outlets more than they distrust them (though they distrust Fox). This, too, suggests conservative selective exposure.


Past Member (0)
Tuesday April 10, 2012, 6:11 pm

Bob hardly here P (394)
Wednesday April 11, 2012, 6:51 pm
thanks for sharing

Past Member (0)
Saturday April 14, 2012, 9:07 am
Thanks for nothing but hate. Gas leveled off at $4.15. Well? Do you know you're being lied to yet?

Past Member (0)
Friday April 20, 2012, 9:11 am
AAAnd paul/mindy moves on to the next pack of right wing, fascist lies..

LIAR!!! What's it like to be a patsy douch bag?

Harsanyi: Another Obama witch hunt
So many imaginary villains and so little time. This week, President Barack Obama is taking the fight to "oil speculators" and "market manipulation" (nee "free enterprise"), demanding that traders put up more money for transactions and government ...

Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 8, 2012, 8:57 pm
Thom's blog
Up to $14 of every tank of gas you fill up is the result of oil speculation

Americans are getting screwed at the gas pump. But it has nothing to do with supply and demand or instability in the Middle East. Instead - it has to do with corruption. As investigative reporter Lee Fang at the Republic Report uncovered - a slew of lobbyists are working on behalf of Wall Street to shoot down regulations intended to curb oil speculation.

Bart Chilton, a commissioner with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, said that as much as $14 in every tank of gas you fill up in your truck is a result of excessive oil speculation. That comes out to a $750 a year tax on all drivers courtesy of Wall Street banksters.

Unfortunately for Americans who can't afford these inflated gas prices - the top Republican financial watchdog in Congress - Representative Spencer Bachus -believes that his job is not to regulate the banks, but instead "regulators are there to serve the banks."


Figure it out yet?

Past Member (0)
Wednesday May 23, 2012, 1:23 pm
Obama says he's going to fix oil speculation. FOX/MEDIA lies to you. You believe the liars.

Oil is down 20% from when you posted this crap.


Past Member (0)
Friday May 25, 2012, 3:23 pm
Still the hater?

Dear Friends,

The average price of a gallon of gas is 50 cents higher in Southwest Oregon than nationally. Like you, I am frustrated and angry. We need immediate action to prevent Oregonians from being gouged at the pump. Here are three ways I am working to bring gas prices down.

Special Investigation into Northwest Gas Prices

The recent run up in gas prices in Oregon and Washington is very suspicious. While the rest of the country is enjoying a decline in gas prices, we are seeing our gas prices skyrocket.

According to AAA, the average price of regular gasoline in Oregon is $4.21- up 21 cents from last week. The average prices in Washington state and California are $4.24 and $4.33 respectively- also double digit increases. Meanwhile, the national average price of regular gasoline dropped to $3.68.

Why are our prices going up?

In February a large fire broke out at the BP oil refinery in Cherry Point, Washington. The Cherry Point refinery is the largest oil refinery in Washington and the third largest on the West Coast, processing approximately 230,000 barrels of crude oil each day. A planned restart of the Cherry Point refinery two weeks ago was delayed due to an “undisclosed problem.”

Coincidentally, the largest refinery cartel in California decided to schedule “maintenance” just before Memorial Day weekend further reducing refinery capacity at a time of high demand.

There is something fishy here.

Last week, I asked the Justice Department’s Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group to investigate the recent decline in West Coast oil refinery production as gas prices spiked throughout the region. This special task force working on energy price manipulation should immediately investigate this coincidental “scheduled maintenance” that has reduced production while prices continue to skyrocket in the Pacific Northwest.

Click this link to check out my letter to the task force.

Curbing Excessive Wall Street Speculation Would Lower Prices

In 2000, Congress passed the Enron loophole that allows Wall Street speculators to enter the energy futures markets. Today up to 70% of oil trading is done by Wall Street speculators who are allowed to bet on oil prices even though they are not oil users. All of this speculating by Wall Street bankers substantially drives up the price Americans pay at the pump and pads the pockets of Wall Street titans.

For the last decade, rising speculation in the oil markets has added considerable volatility to the price of oil. Last year, Reuters reported that Wall Street speculation added between $21.40 and $26.75 to the cost of a barrel of crude oil. These numbers were based on a report by Goldman Sachs, one of the largest speculators in the world market. And the CEO of Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest oil company, testified to the Senate last May that oil would cost between $60 and $70 per barrel, if the price of oil were based on supply and demand fundamentals. The price of oil on that day was $98 a barrel. That means Wall Street speculators inflated the price $28 to $38 a barrel.

Wall Street speculators are manipulating the gas market to make massive profits while middle class families are digging deep to pay for skyrocketing gas prices. I introduced legislation that would bring immediate relief to American families and small businesses being crushed by high gas prices. H.R. 2003, the Taxing Speculators Out of the Oil Market Act, would target Wall Street speculators that are responsible for unnecessarily inflating the price of gas by up to 80 cents a gallon.

My legislation would deter speculation by raising the cost to bet and gamble on oil markets. By charging a miniscule 0.01 percent tax on each bet, excessive speculation would become too expensive and risky. Discouraging excessive oil speculation will lower gas prices up to 80 cents a gallon because it does not tax oil, just Wall Street speculators.

Congress has a choice. Either it passes legislation that goes after the excessive Wall Street speculation that inflates prices, or it once again kicks the can down the road with half-measures that only score political points.

Boosting Domestic Production

We also need more domestic production, but that will only bring down prices if the oil and gas stay in the U.S. It’s outrageous that the U.S. is now a net exporter of oil. In 2010, the United States exported more than $70 billion worth of oil, ten times more than we did in the 1990s. We are now also exporting gasoline in record amounts. I have repeatedly voted for amendments that would ensure American oil recovered from new projects, including the Keystone if it is built, would have to stay in the U.S. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have opposed those efforts and our failed trade policies prevent administrative action.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.