Inflation be Damned

[K Graham]

Jen Psaki Schools Fox News' Peter Doocy With Facts: 'I Know That Can Be Inconvenient'

The reporter tries to blame rising gas prices on the Biden administration rather than Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

No-nonsense White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Monday used “facts” to shoot down hectoring questions on mounting gasoline prices from Fox News reporter Peter Doocy. “I know that can be inconvenient,” she noted sarcastically.

Doocy pressed her on fuel prices as he dismissed the widely held position that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has triggered the recent leap in costs — and instead blamed Biden administration policies.

“There’s no question” the price hikes are a “direct result of the invasion of Ukraine,” Psaki responded. “Federal policies are not limiting the supplies of oil and gas,” she added.

When Doocy interrupted her, Psaki fired back: “Peter, let me give you the facts here. I know that can be inconvenient, but I think they’re important in this moment.”

Biden administration officials have been “clear” about the need for the U.S. oil supply to meet demand while also pushing for a shift to renewable energy sources, she said.

Psaki pointed out that the U.S. is one of the world’s largest producers of oil and gas, noting that oil production in the nation is at “record numbers.”

Meanwhile, there are “9,000 approved drilling permits that are not being used, so the suggestion that we are not allowing companies to drill is inaccurate,” Psaki added. “I would suggest you ask the oil companies why they’re not using those if there’s a desire to drill more.”

[Res Ipsa]

Biden is going to make Jimmy Carter look like a genius!!

Funny that you should mention him. This article is from a few years back:

Is it Safe Now to Admit Jimmy Carter Was Right?

By Joseph Wheelan

This is what he said in July 1979: “You know we can do it. We have the natural resources. We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any nation on Earth. We have the world's highest level of technology. We have the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I firmly believe that we have the national will to win this war.”

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52030

All good until he blew the landing. Oil Shale is our equivalent of the Alberta tar sands. It has high greenhouse gas emissions due to the extra processing required to extract and refine it. Back in the '70s, energy independence in the U.S. was a question of increasing production. But, when we tried, OPEC simply pumped more oil, driving the price down to the point that shale oil was a money losing proposition. Unless we do something drastic like forbid petroleum exports and imports, we cannot insulate the price of oil and its products from the manipulation of production by the cartel that controls most of the worlds oil reserves.

If we truly want energy independence, the only practical way to do it is to reduce our use of petroleum products by changing our sources of energy over to ones that OPEC or any other cartel cannot control: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear. But the GOP (and some dems) do not really want energy independence -- they just want those sweet, sweet petrodollar campaign donations flowing into their war chests.

[Atlanticmike]

Funny that you should mention him. This article is from a few years back:

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52030

[/size]
All good until he blew the landing. Oil Shale is our equivalent of the Alberta tar sands. It has high greenhouse gas emissions due to the extra processing required to extract and refine it. Back in the '70s, energy independence in the U.S. was a question of increasing production. But, when we tried, OPEC simply pumped more oil, driving the price down to the point that shale oil was a money losing proposition. Unless we do something drastic like forbid petroleum exports and imports, we cannot insulate the price of oil and its products from the manipulation of production by the cartel that controls most of the worlds oil reserves.

If we truly want energy independence, the only practical way to do it is to reduce our use of petroleum products by changing our sources of energy over to ones that OPEC or any other cartel cannot control: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear. But the GOP (and some dems) do not really want energy independence -- they just want those sweet, sweet petrodollar campaign donations flowing into their war chests.

This post is probably one of the most retarted post you’ve ever posted!! It’s right up there with some of Kevin’s insane progressive cult post!! I don’t know anyone opposed to alternative energy as long as it makes sense, dumbass!! But the insane progressive wing of the Democrat party is willing to make people suffer in hopes they’ll change their minds on oil production. That’s stupid as fxxk!!

Again! What are you doing to help the environment?? Oh wait!! You’ve already answered that a week ago! You said you’re not willing to help the environment because it has to be a global effort or nothing!

[canpakes]

All good until he blew the landing. Oil Shale is our equivalent of the Alberta tar sands. It has high greenhouse gas emissions due to the extra processing required to extract and refine it.

True. Although, to be fair, general awareness on the effects of greenhouse emissions on climate was still a decade out at that point in time.

Back in the '70s, energy independence in the U.S. was a question of increasing production. But, when we tried, OPEC simply pumped more oil, driving the price down to the point that shale oil was a money losing proposition. Unless we do something drastic like forbid petroleum exports and imports, we cannot insulate the price of oil and its products from the manipulation of production by the cartel that controls most of the worlds oil reserves.

If we truly want energy independence, the only practical way to do it is to reduce our use of petroleum products by changing our sources of energy over to ones that OPEC or any other cartel cannot control: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear. But the GOP (and some dems) do not really want energy independence -- they just want those sweet, sweet petrodollar campaign donations flowing into their war chests.

The Carter Administration did make some problematic moves on energy policy (Windfall Profit tax policy, as example), but I appreciate that it elevated renewables into the public discourse, even if use of them didn’t gain much traction at the time from that attention. Had we taken renewables more seriously after that point, we might be quite a bit farther along the path that we ultimately have to take anyway. Likely, even ajax and Atlanticmike would be happier today for it. : )

[canpakes]

This post is probably one of the most retarted post you’ve ever posted!!

retarted adjective

re·​tart·​ed | \ ri-ˈtär-təd \
Definition of retarted
1. having a specific acid level restored to reconstituted consumable solution: the resulting lemonade mix was retarted to be more pleasing to the taste


Why are you talking about retarting in a thread about inflation and energy?

[Atlanticmike]

This post is probably one of the most retarted post you’ve ever posted!!

retarted adjective

re·​tart·​ed | \ ri-ˈtär-təd \
Definition of retarted
1. having a specific acid level restored to reconstituted consumable solution: the resulting lemonade mix was retarted to be more pleasing to the taste


Why are you talking about retarting in a thread about inflation and energy?

That’s how we spell it in Virginia, dumbass!!

I know you like the D! So if you want me to remove the T so you feel better I will!

[canpakes]

retarted adjective

re·​tart·​ed | \ ri-ˈtär-təd \
Definition of retarted
1. having a specific acid level restored to reconstituted consumable solution: the resulting lemonade mix was retarted to be more pleasing to the taste


Why are you talking about retarting in a thread about inflation and energy?

That’s how we spell it in Virginia, dumbass!!

I know you like the D! So if you want me to remove the T so you feel better I will!

Now you’re talking about tea. Still off-topic. : D

[Res Ipsa]

[/size]

All good until he blew the landing. Oil Shale is our equivalent of the Alberta tar sands. It has high greenhouse gas emissions due to the extra processing required to extract and refine it. Back in the '70s, energy independence in the U.S. was a question of increasing production. But, when we tried, OPEC simply pumped more oil, driving the price down to the point that shale oil was a money losing proposition. Unless we do something drastic like forbid petroleum exports and imports, we cannot insulate the price of oil and its products from the manipulation of production by the cartel that controls most of the worlds oil reserves.

If we truly want energy independence, the only practical way to do it is to reduce our use of petroleum products by changing our sources of energy over to ones that OPEC or any other cartel cannot control: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear. But the GOP (and some dems) do not really want energy independence -- they just want those sweet, sweet petrodollar campaign donations flowing into their war chests.

This post is probably one of the most retarted post you’ve ever posted!! It’s right up there with some of Kevin’s insane progressive cult post!! I don’t know anyone opposed to alternative energy as long as it makes sense, dumbass!! But the insane progressive wing of the Democrat party is willing to make people suffer in hopes they’ll change their minds on oil production. That’s stupid as fxxk!!

Again! What are you doing to help the environment?? Oh wait!! You’ve already answered that a week ago! You said you’re not willing to help the environment because it has to be a global effort or nothing!

[K Graham]

crap just got real.

McDonald's is shutting down its Russian restaurants

[Gadianton]

A-Mike once again needs to answer: Under Trump's vision of the US as a net energy exporter, where is the incentive to lower the price of oil?