On Thursday, March 29, 2012, USA today published an article titled "Oil industry group attacks Obama on gas prices"
There has been argued that oil industry companies
attack Obama on gas prices. The fluctuation of rising gas price is always one
of the biggest issues and the most disputable matters what we have confronted. Nowadays,
the gas price has been skyrocketed, and it is rising to the surface again. Even
though oil industry or the people against Obama try to insult or blame Obama
administration on gas prices, people should recognize that it’s seriously
flexible which can be dependent on economical situation or some kind of political
intrigue, and also it is a finite resource, not unlimited one like the energy from the wind. I don’t
think that Obama utilizes this one of the most important maintenance in our
lives for his re-election strategy. For
instance, the gas price average was up to $4.11 of a gallon in 2008. To be
specific, there was a steady decline during the following 6 months owing to the recession
which lead OPEC to cut production by 2.2 million barrels a day to keep the
prices. As far as I’m concerned, the oil industry is blaming out at Obama
because he wants to eliminate their $4 Billion in tax breaks after the big oil
companies said that they had earned enormous profit in this year. Actually,
not only in this year, but they have gained great profit during 4 years, and
now they have been raising gas prices. It seems like their unfair and mean
revenge started toward Obama and expects to have him disadvantage in
re-election.
Yong's Political Sight, a blog regarding government issues, has opined that the high price of gas is being blamed on President Obama. Yong's argument appears in his class blog and is directed toward his classmates as well as potential voters at this year's election and any person doling out big bucks at a gas pump. Yong's argument flows easily between gasoline prices and politick as he infers that a new president--a rich, republican president--may not be as sym/empathetic as our current incumbent. His point is valid, thought-provoking and pertinent to the forthcoming election.
ReplyDeleteYong's concerned that the steady increase in the price of gas will have an adverse effect on the President's chances for re-election, regardless that he (the President) has nothing to do with the price of petrol.
An assumption Yong makes is that big oil companies are threatened by Obama's alternative energy leanings and are attempting to cause a blight on his name by electively raising prices on gas, hoping that the American people will in turn blame Obama for the continued climb in prices and vote for the other guy (a big fossil-fuel advocate) in the fall.
Yong suggests that President Obama should use the value of the alternative energy platform in conjunction with fossil fuels as positive plugs in his re-election campaign.
His discourse is effective in connecting a three-pronged complexity of:
**the world of politics
**those that are most effected by it (us)
**the threat (and reactions) of increased taxes on leviathanic businesses
Yong's blog piece links to factoids of a particular cite, which in turn threads out to many cites underscoring his statements that Mr. Obama has nothing to do with the price of gas. He opines that big oil companies are hiking prices merely in attempt to squelch the possibility of Obama being re-elected, and subsequently (and enthusiastically) supporting his replacement.
I've heard this argument often in the news recently and Yong's article made me curiouser to explore more information on the matter. After rifling through a few cites and commentaries, I found that the presidential outcome will likely vary little regarding gas prices--that states that are paying the most for gasoline are generally democratic states, and are planning on remaining democratic states come the fall--and that it is the pundits who are tabling and exaggerating the notion that the President has something to do with fuel prices. (And pundits that say they can bring down the price of gasoline are full of fluff.)
Yong's topic is valid and valued information that is helpful for decision-making later as well as making me wonder how much control over the future seat of the president big business comes in with.
Politically important to know is that although big business is playing a game with the seat of the presidency, Mr. Obama must still take notice of it and act effectively if he's to sit in that chair again in February. This topic sheds light on a small (and very important) aspect of how our country is effected (and affected), illuminating some of the cogs of industry and the power with which this particular type of commerce can influence politics.
This whole activity (electing a president) is meant as a gesture for the common folk to be heard--not as a game for the rich to get richer, and the others...the opposite. It's all a little bit disconcerting. Boys with toys.