Due to falling energy prices, Obama is proposing cuts to LIHEAP funding without reducing services

[ClarkUSA]

The cost of running the program is the same but since energy prices have gone down since he first called for an increase, there's no longer the need to sustain an increase which was never meant to be permanent in the first place.

President Obama defended Tuesday his proposal to slash funding for a program to provide assistance to poor Americans who can't pay their heating bills.

Obama said he called for significant increases to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program earlier in his presidency when energy prices were spiking. But he said the program can be cut because energy prices have stabilized. LIHEAP is currently funded at $5.1 billion and Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget request calls for cutting the program by $2.5 billlion.

"Energy prices have now gone down but the cost of the program has stayed the same," Obama said during a press conference Tuesday. "Let’s go back to a more sustainable level."

Obama signaled that he would be willing to reconsider the cuts if energy prices spike again. "If it turns out there is another huge energy spike, then we can revisit it," he said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/144167-obama-defends-proposal-to-cut-liheap-funding

Get it? President Obama is exercising common sense.

These are the facts. The logic here is pretty easy to follow, so I hope those who are so concerned about this issue are more informed now.

[atreides1]

1. Interesting

But what if the prices go up again?

[ClarkUSA]

2. Pres. Obama has that covered. See the last quoted sentence.

Obama signaled that he would be willing to reconsider the cuts if energy prices spike again. "If it turns out there is another huge energy spike, then we can revisit it," he said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/144167-obama-defends-proposal-to-cut-liheap-funding

[rhett o rick]

164. yes "we can revisit it", code for "you're fooked". nm

[BklnDem75]

3. I tried explaining that the other day to no avail

It's easier to think Obama's evil.

[ClarkUSA]

4. Demonizing Pres. Obama rather than listening to the facts is a sign of obvious bias, of course.

That's why I decided to post an OP which I hope can shed some light in dark cobwebbed crevices.

It's a hopeless task, I know. Notice the unrecs from those who would deny the truth about President Obama's motives.

Hopefully, though, these facts will be used by Obama supporters to combat further disinformation on this issue.

[polmaven]

7. You are probably right

that is is a hopeless task, but thank you for trying. I appreciate the access to the info to use.

[Bonobo]

26. Your facts are disinformation. I crunched through ALL the data myself laboriously.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=419042

[tekisui]

30. Your OP offers no facts except that the funding is cut by nearly half.

And a the fact that Obama claims that cutting the funding in half won't decrease services. To be facts, the claims must be backed up. Neither you nor Obama have done that. To accept these claims, I would need to see the numbers of how energy prices have gone down so substantially that an increase in people dependent on LIHEAP can actually be funded with HALF the allocation.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. And it's still crickets from the OP and the people high fiving him. eom

[brentspeak]

11. Probably because everyone laughed

when you claimed that energy prices "have gone down".

[Grinchie]

18. I know I'm laughing.. $3.75 9/10ths per gallon here.

I know that is just for gasoline, and that perhaps heating oil or propane may be a bit less, but today I saw Oil at $108/barrel.

Love it when those energy prices go down before they skyrocket again.

And I thought Dubya was a sockpuppet.. -- This Obama character is just a different sock. Owned by Monsanto and the Military Industrial Complex, beholding to the Banksters and the Fake Values they promulgate. It's all a sham, and the cheerleaders for Obama can't even keep up with the news.

[BklnDem75]

117. Yeah hilarious

Crude oil:

July 2008 $147.30 a barrel
Yesterday $86.15 a barrel

I almost bust a gut.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_energy_crisis

[SkyDaddy7]

155. EXACTLY! People simply like to bash Obama!

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.


-John Adams

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. Bonobo in post #23 has rebutted your OP

Why don't you take a gander at his post and see if you can address it. He's got numbers. Where are yours?

[tekisui]

39. Check post #37, too.

[tallahasseedem]

8. Thank you for this ClarkUSA...

Somehow I think the haters will stay out of this thread. There are certainly plenty out there! Trust me, they tried (and failed) to gang up on me the other day.

[tekisui]

62. This OP offers no facts.

Only one energy source has declined in price- natural gas. That's it. And, the number of recipients has increased. There is no evidence to suggest that the drop in price of only one energy source will cover a funding slash of over half.

[former9thward]

9. What energy prices have gone down?

Especially the ones covered by this program.

[Lucinda]

63. Not mine. Just about to pay the highest electric bill I've ever had

Costs are definitely not dropping in East TN.

[eilen]

83. Mine was $400 last month -- National Greed/Grid

and no, they have not lowered their prices. In fact, they have been lobbying heavily for a rate increase.

[Lucinda]

89. Ouch. Mine is $300....which is obscene.

I think we are paying for all the holiday lights they put up, even though they say they don't pass the charges on. Even considering that, i've never had a bill over $200 - and those were rare.

[eilen]

94. It's been mighty cold here in upstate NY.

It has gone up to the mid 300's but the $400 is a personal high. I have a programmable thermostat too. We did not get our customary January thaw-- a week of lower temps-- instead we had more snow/lake effect.

[dsc]

10. I find it hard to believe energy prices are all that down

given 3 dollar gas. I admit, I don't know for sure, but I bet heating oil is higher than normal right now.

[Bonobo]

27. Your instincts are correct.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=419042

[treestar]

46. You are guessing here

So why jump to conclusions when you know you aren't sure of the facts?

[tekisui]

70. Here are the facts, the OP is baseless and without any:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html

Energy prices have fallen for only ONE source, natural gas. The decrease is less than 8%. ALL other energy sources have INCREASED in cost.

There are more LIHEAP recipients now. There is no evidence that cutting LIHEAP funding by HALF could be covered by the decrease in one energy source (which by the way is expected to increase this year).

[Autumn]

113. I know one thing, my propane is higher.

so for what it's worth, that I do know for a fact.

[jenmito]

12. Thank you for posting this! n/t

[PA Democrat]

13. According to the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association

heating prices overall went down less than 6%. I'm not sure how the same level of services can be maintained with half the funding. Furthermore, there has been an increase in people applying for benefits, and only about 20% of people who would be eligible actually apply for and receive benefits. Please take the time to look at the data within the link.



http://www.neada.org/communications/testimony/2010-04-15.pdf

[slipslidingaway]

16. knr your reply - "Adm. Proposal Cuts 3.1 Million Households from Energy Assistance"

http://www.neada.org/

http://www.neada.org/appropriations/2011-02-09LIHEAPProjServedAdmPrposal.pdf

[tekisui]

33. I just don't see how the numbers can support Obama's claim.

[hay rick]

14. Some prices up, some down.

If New York is representative, home heating oil has been up 10-25% over last year. Link: http://www.nyserda.org/energy_information/nyepd.asp

Natural gas prices, on the other hand, have been quite low by historical standards, reflecting the rapid recent development of shale gas.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xphile]

17. What a complete load of crap. What President Obama is actually doing is once again

capitulating to the Republicans who will never, ever like him.

Common sense would be to not extend the Bush tax cuts then try to pay for them on the backs of the poor. This proposal is plain unadulterated bullshit.

This is what passes for Democratic thinking these days? If a Republican pulled this crap you'd be screaming to high heaven about how wrong it is but because someone who claims to be a Democrat does it you think it's fine?

No it is not fine and making excuses for it is nothing more than a fine example of sycophancy at work.

But what's a few dead poor people if you can be reelected while not standing up for what the Democratic party claims to stand for?

[Auntie Bush]

166. Welcome to DU

[angee_is_mad]

19. Kick

and recommend!

[impik]

20. It's like talking to the wall

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hedgehog]

21. Thank you - it didn't make sense to me that Obama would cut off heat for the poor.

[tekisui]

22. I'd like to see the math behind this unsubstantiated statement.

We know that more people are using LIHEAP. Energy prices would have had to dropped drastically to be able to fund more participants with half the money.

I would like to see the evidence of the drastic fall in prices.

[Bonobo]

24. You can see all the numbers I collected in my link to my post below.

It is not true that numbers are going down. Not one bit.

The avg. price of heating oil was $3.23/gallon
in 07/08; $2.45 in 08/09; $2.65 in 09/10; and $3.12 in 10/11.

[Bonobo]

23. Except that energy prices aren't falling. They are going up.

I did a very careful analysis of the numbers and posted them last week.

This is wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=419042

[slipslidingaway]

28. Thank you for looking at the numbers ...

http://www.neada.org/

February 10, 2011
+ Adm. Proposal Cuts 3.1 Million Households from Energy Assistance

February 8, 2011
+ Applications for Energy Assistance Again Reach Record Levels

[chill_wind]

29. Thanks Bonobo. Maybe you could repost that

since this is a very important issue and it's critical not to simply accept and go with a bad premise.
That had to take a lot of time and work and it's obvious a lot of DUers haven't seen it. If I could kick it I would.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. Where are the numbers to prove this assertion?

They say this over and over and produce no numerical evidence of any kind to show that fuel prices have gone down commensurate with the cuts they want to make. This is uncharacteristic of an administration that loves to produce spiffy looking charts to show how awesome their latest capitulation to the GOP is really going to be for working and middle class Americans.

[tekisui]

No one has produced any evidence supporting Obama's claim yet.

I'm going to keep kicking the thread until someone backs it up.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Keeping this kicked until the statement is substantiated. eom

[tekisui]

38. Check post #37, just below.

[Hello_Kitty]

42. Where are the OP's numbers?

:shrug:

[tekisui]

37. I don't think Obama is right on this one.

The only energy price that has fallen from 2009 is Natural Gas, and it is predicted to increase this year. The % change column is the change from 2009 to 2010. Natural gas fell 7.8%. But is forecast to reach a 1.1% increase in 2011 over the 2009 cost.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html

Price Summary

2010 2011 %Change

WTI Crude ($/barrel) 79.40 93.26 28.8
Gasoline ($/gal) 2.78 3.15 18.4
Diesel ($/gal) 2.99 3.43 21.5
Heating Oil ($/gal) 2.97 3.41 17.5
Natural Gas ($/mcf) 11.17 11.29 -7.8
Electricity (cents/kwh) 11.58 11.65 0.7


Can a 7.8% decrease in only natural gas, with an increase of participants in LIHEAP, warrant a cut of over half of the funding? Even if ALL the recipients used only natural gas, the numbers don't add up.

[Hello_Kitty]

40. The OP is a classic example of Appeal to Authority

If President Obama says it, it's true. That's the entire basis of the argument in the OP.

[tekisui]

41. It's a fact!

[Robb]

50. Heh. Choosing to look only at 2009 does confirm your hypothesis.

And you could make the same argument if you picked, say, 2004.

One year does not a trend make. This may be illustrative, or helpful, although it is only NGE price, the trend is reflected across consumer energy:



Source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3045us3m.htm

Now, what you should do is point out that the proposed cut would bring per-household LIHEAP spending to well below pre-2008 levels.

[tekisui]

51. I'm not looking for a trend. I am looking at the numbers from last

year to this year. Obama wants a cut of over half and claims it is in response to falling energy prices, yet that hasn't been shown to be the case.

[Robb]

55. So if energy prices aren't falling in the specific years you pick, they aren't falling?

That doesn't make any sense. Energy prices are trending downward, ignoring that is foolhardy -- although, honestly, it probably doesn't matter, or rather the trend isn't steep enough to offset other conditions.

As I alluded to, the flaw of the administration's plan lies in per household LIHEAP spending. There's a good argument to be made there against this proposal -- specifically the likelihood that the increasing number of participants are disproportionally requiring higher per-household assistance, at a rate that offsets the trend of falling energy prices, because they don't have jobs.

Frankly, fiddling with LIHEAP isn't going to solve much until those jobs return.

[tekisui]

59. NGE are the only prices that I can find that are trending downward,

and that is not expected to be the case this coming year.

My only point is that the energy price numbers since 2009 do not support a claim that cutting the yearly budget in half, with more recipients, is offset due to a decease in prices.

The claim fails.

[Robb]

61. Your ultimate conclusion is correct, at least.

The cuts are a bad idea.

[Hello_Kitty]

53. That's not taking into account the increase in the number of households on LIHEAP

And there are many more Americans who qualify for the assistance, income wise, than receive it. I could see tying the funding of the program to energy prices if the number of people using it was fairly constant but that is not the case. This cut, if made, will result in millions of Americans seeing a reduction or a loss of this badly needed assistance. This is political posturing at the expense of the poor.

[Bonobo]

146. Tekisui... you are the man. Glad to have you around. nt

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hulka38]

44. What a crock. n/t

[treestar]

45. So we should get all of the facts before jumping to conclusions?

Who knew? :rofl:

[Hello_Kitty]

48. Facts are all over this thread, treestar

Facts that inconviently refute the President's claim.

Where are the data that substantiate his claim?

[displacedvermoter]

178. The fucking laughing thingee!!!

That is all that is needed!

[tekisui]

52. Neither Obama, the OP or you have offered any facts.

None. Keep laughing.

[Hello_Kitty]

56. Oh come on, it's just poor people!

There are important rich people's tax breaks to protect! Let the paupers eat cold.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

123. Yeah, that's it.

:eyes:

[xphile]

104. There are no facts in the OP. It's pure spin.

In other words it's a crock.

[slipslidingaway]

47. Where are the facts to substantiate the points in the OP ...

"...Get it? President Obama is exercising common sense.

These are the facts. The logic here is pretty easy to follow, so I hope those who are so concerned about this issue are more informed now..."

There are no facts in that very short article, if you want people to be informed then you need to present the facts with links to back up those numbers. How do you think people are more informed if the facts were not outlined.

:shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

49. That's what a lot of us keep asking

So far, no response.

[slipslidingaway]

66. Very telling that not one person has come forward to support the OP's claim. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

68. Nope. All they have is "President Obama said so, neener neener." eom

[slipslidingaway]

157. And still no facts, nice to just believe without any questions. n/t

[tekisui]

71. Because they can't. Obama is being very deceptive here.

[slipslidingaway]

158. When the OP says people are demonizing Obama and obviously have a bias...

without ever coming back to present the facts then people should take what this person says with a large grain of salt. Just because Obama is being deceptive, no reason to call out other DU'ers when they question the "facts."

[bvar22]

54. I agree ...It is just common sense.

If you give HUGE Tax Cuts to the very RICH,
it is just "common sense" & "logic" that the Working Class & The Poor will have to pay for it.

Sheesh.
Some people just don't get it.

The Governor of Wisconsin just did the exact same thing,
and those assholes in Wisconsin are protesting.
They clearly have NO "Common Sense".

[Hello_Kitty]

57. Yep.

:thumbsup:

These proposed cuts are penny-pinching at the expense of the poor.

[chill_wind]

58. Politics. Good article at ProPublica

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/politics-surround-obamas-heating-cuts-for-the-poor

[Hello_Kitty]

60. I love one of the comments

Mr. Obama still wants to be Billy Bob’s president. That is never going to happen, not in 200 years. Mr. Obama is losing his base. I really thought that once Emanuel was gone things would change but Daily is just another idiot giving him the wrong information. If Obama cannot carry the rust belt, he’s history. Apparently he wants to be the youngest former president.

[chill_wind]

74. Plus it debunks all the actual BS about the waste and management

coming from the critics. Wingers mostly. Not that there probably isn't in fact some waste or fraud, but nobody's going to get rich defrauding LIHEAP.

[WolfoftheWild]

64. so, Obama's not really kicking poor people out in the cold after all.

The sky was just falling one more time.

[Hello_Kitty]

65. Yes he is.

And where are your data? We're still waiting.

[Phx_Dem]

77. Bullshit. Where's your data?

[tekisui]

78. Check posts #23 and #37,

Plenty of actual facts in this thread, NONE however supporting the OP's claim. Not one set of figures supporting the OP's position.

[Hello_Kitty]

81. And telling considering that this administration loves to put out spiffy charts

That supposedly demonstrate how awesome their latest capitulation to the GOP will be for the working class.

[Hello_Kitty]

79. It's all over this thread if you bothered to look.

President Obama is proposing harsh cuts to some of our most vulnerable citizens to look tough.

[WolfoftheWild]

82. posting old data again and again doesn't make it relevant.

Somehow I doubt you or anyone on DU has access to the figures that the White House does.

They have a little more access, don't you think?

[Hello_Kitty]

84. This administration has never been shy about releasing numbers that make its policies look good

It's telling that they haven't put anything with actual numbers on it try and sell this turd.

[tekisui]

85. First off, it isn't 'old data'. It is current and accurate.

Second, the prices that have been paid for energy sources for the past years are not debatable. The figures are hard numbers. The WH would not have different numbers.

Third, it is faulty and dangerous logic to accept and/or assume that just because one is President that they know more and that is enough to go on. Did you accept bush's claims when he was president as true just because he said so?

[WolfoftheWild]

87. do you work in the energy industry? where did you gain your expertise on this subject?

The People that Obama has working on this are experts in their fields.
They are qualified to analyze ALL the numbers available, not a limited subset, and reach valid conclusions.

You just don't have the same tools to work with.

[tekisui]

88. THey haven't offered any numbers. The numbers are here. No

expert analysis needed. It is really just simple math.

The only energy price that has fallen from 2009 is Natural Gas, and it is predicted to increase this year. The % change column is the change from 2009 to 2010. Natural gas fell 7.8%. But is forecast to reach a 1.1% increase in 2011 over the 2009 cost.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html

Price Summary

2010 2011 %Change

WTI Crude ($/barrel) 79.40 93.26 28.8
Gasoline ($/gal) 2.78 3.15 18.4
Diesel ($/gal) 2.99 3.43 21.5
Heating Oil ($/gal) 2.97 3.41 17.5
Natural Gas ($/mcf) 11.17 11.29 -7.8
Electricity (cents/kwh) 11.58 11.65 0.7


Can a 7.8% decrease in only natural gas, with an increase of participants in LIHEAP, warrant a cut of over half of the funding? Even if ALL the recipients used only natural gas, the numbers don't add up.

[WolfoftheWild]

92. You don't even have the facts on how LIHEAP was apportioned in the first place.

Without knowing that, how can you claim to give a definitive view of how the change in energy prices affects LIHEAP?

[tekisui]

95. It is easy logic.

LIHEAP allocates money for energy source funding for poor folks. It funds a variety of energy sources: natural gas, coal, wood, kerosene, etc.

Of all of the sources, ONLY natural gas has decreased. 7.8% over the last year, although it is going up this year. The past year and this year have seen an increase in recipients of LIHEAP assistance.

The burden is on those making the ridiculous claim in this thread that increases in all heating sources (except natural gas) and an increase in recipients can be covered with a cut of OVER half. You can't and they can't because it is just not accurate or truthful.

ETA: Here are the LIHEAP numbers. You can see what sources are funded at what rates. No way you cut it can a budget cut of half cover the reduction in cost of solely natural gas.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/funding/2010_allocation.pdf

[Hello_Kitty]

101. And you're agreeing with the President based on NO facts but his statement.

Which you say we have to believe because of some data the administration must be looking at that they haven't seen fit to show to the rest of us.

[WolfoftheWild]

108. post 106 is just for you

[slipslidingaway]

69. Maybe you should try reading some links instead of posting the same thing...

again and again.

http://www.neada.org/

http://www.neada.org/appropriations/2011-02-09LIHEAPProjServedAdmPrposal.pdf

"February 10, 2011
+ Adm. Proposal Cuts 3.1 Million Households from Energy Assistance"

[tekisui]

73. And, you back that up how?

[bvar22]

86. It is the Fox News method of back up.

If you tell a lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.


Silly You.
Asking for corroboration from anyplace other than WhiteHouse.gov


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their works you will know them."

[Vinca]

67. So I'm only imagining my fuel oil bill is 50 cents a gallon higher this year?

And I've heard in some places it's 75 cents higher. Charts with spikes and valleys don't mean much when you're cold.

[Hello_Kitty]

72. And fuel prices don't tell the whole story anyway.

A lot more people are on LIHEAP now than were in 2008. There's no way fuel prices could have dropped enough on average to offset the need.

[Phx_Dem]

75. Of course he's not cuting heating for the poor. Anyone who thought he

would do such a thing is a moron who knows nothing about this man. Kneejerk reactors are neither helpful nor knowledgeable.

[tekisui]

76. Can you support that? No one in this thread has been able to yet.

While much evidence has been given that the OP is factually incorrect.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WolfoftheWild]

109. see post 106

[northernlights]

90. if only the facts supported the logic

Unfortunately, they don't:

1. energy prices are NOT coming down.
2. after 2 years of relatively mild winters, we are having a duzy this year. at least where I live, with weeks of -15 temps on the coast, colder inland.

Not to mention, more people out of work in desperate need of assistance. More homeless in desperate need of assistance. More underemployed in desperate need of assistance.

But even if it is being worse than ignored and actually denied at the national level, at least at the local level it is being noticed.

Rockland, ME, voted one of the top 2 "coolest places to live" or some such nonsense last year, has a page one article on our invisible homeless in its local newsletter.

Imagine living in your car at -15. Because that's what it's come down to here.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

93. Yup, Prosense had explained this in a post when the budget came out.

Thanks for giving it, it's own thread.

[tekisui]

96. Too bad there are no facts whatsoever to back the claim up.

[ProSense]

103. I really didn't address this. The post

was a fact sheet of specific proposals: Obama's budget and low-income families, head start, homelessness.

Before the 2012 budget came out, I did post that the 2011 budget request was double the 2008 appropriation.

Still, I don't think the cuts to LIHEAP are going to survive. The Massachusetts (Senator Kerry) and Vermont (Senator Sanders) delegations are against them. Senators Collins and Snowe also opposed the cuts.

[politicasista]

107. Yet, some Senators got attacked for jumping to conclusions

on this, and falling for media spin that Obama was throwing poor people under the bus. Heard that a lot of them (i.e. Senator Gilibrand) had to walk back their comments after the WH clarified the LIHEAP issue.

Be nice if some (not all) of Obama's supporters would show more respect for people like Senator Kerry, who's support of the president has been unwavering, and has been a credible outside voice for the Obama Administration on FP. :hide:

[SwampG8r]

179. what crap

[apocalypsehow]

97. Kick, Rec. Excellent OP. n/t.

[tekisui]

98. The OP has nothing of substance. No facts, nothing to back up the claims.

Hardly excellent.

[MadHound]

99. Energy prices are falling? Really?

Wow, must be nice to live where both your and Obama apparently live. Meanwhile, back here in the real world energy prices are actually rising.
<http://www.npr.org/2011/01/03/132631452/Why-Are-Oil-Prices-On-The-Rise>

"Propane prices still up for the week ending February 14, 2011

Propane prices recorded a half cent a gallon gain in residential prices this week. This brings the national average for propane prices up to $ 2.83 a gallon, compares with $2.69 a gallon last winter"
<http://integrityenergy.com/propane-prices-html/>

Coal prices higher:

"The estimates for the annual coal contracts range from a low of $130 a ton to a high of $145. But either way, it will be far above the $98 set last year."
<http://www.investmentu.com/2011/February/thermal-coal-prices.html>

Electricity:

" EIA expects the U.S. retail price for electricity distributed to the residential sector to rise slightly (0.6 percent) during 2011, after a small increase of 0.7 percent during 2010. The U.S. residential price increases by about 0.7 percent in 2012."
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo/contents.html#Electricity_Markets>

Oh, and one other thing, the number of people needing LIHEAP assistance has increased for the third year in a row.

"The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association will announce Wednesday that 8.9 million households are expected to qualify for financial help this winter, up from 8.3 million last winter. It's the third year in a row the number of households needing assistance has set a new high."
<http://stage-v4.federalnewsradio.com/?sid=2264180&nid=37>

I find it amazing how people can rationalize the most heinous of policies. Worse, when people use misleading, or simply wrong, talking points in order to make those rationalizations.

[Hello_Kitty]

100. It's easy when it doesn't affect you personally

I'll bet not a single person defending this needs LIHEAP.

[boppers]

176. I'll bet not a single person attacking *or* defending this needs LIHEAP.

We're the folks rich enough to have internet connections and time to argue.

[bvar22]

102. It IS Common Sense:

If you cut taxes on the very RICH,
you have to make it up on the backs of the Working Class & Poor.

..because NOW, after the HUGE Tax Cuts for The RICH,
the deficit suddenly matters!
"Its the uniquely American Solution!"

It only sucks if you Work for a Living, or are Poor.

Don't "begrudge them their wealth."
The RICH "are just savvy businessmen!"
"Its the FREE MARKET!!!"
"Look at all baseball players."

[hulka38]

105. To put this forward is stunning.

Rahm isn't the only one who thinks we're retarded.

[WolfoftheWild]

106. Here are some numbers backing this up

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/funding/fund.html

In 2008, LIHEAP assistance to the States amounted to $2,587,372,503

In 2009, LIHEAP assistance was $5,065,965,572

What accounted for this dramatic rise?
Did the price of energy costs double?
Not according to these figures:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/steo_full.pdf

Alot has been made about the cost of heating oil going up, but if you'll notice, only around 7-8 million people use heating oil.
Whereas, well over 56 million people use Natural Gas. They make up the majority.

As tekisui has pointed out in posts above, the price of Natural Gas has actually gone down ~18% in the past few years. It is significantly lower than it was in 2008 or 2009.
Since the cost of Natural Gas has gone down and the majority of people that LIHEAP applies to are using Natural Gas, then it would make sense that less money is needed for LIHEAP.

Obama has proposed returning LIHEAP to around 2.6 billion dollars. That is basically returning it to its 2008 amount.
Since 2008, the costs of heating oil and propane have gone up slightly, but this is outweighed overall by the decrease in the cost of Natural Gas (since many more people are using Natural Gas).

So we get to the main point.
If the cost of energy has gone down on average since 2008, why does LIHEAP require twice as much money as it did in 2008?


These are the facts. What Obama said is true.
He is not on a crusade against poor people, he is trying to get this Nation's finances in order.

[Hello_Kitty]

110. You have not proven the thesis of the OP

Which is that these cuts can be made with people getting the same level of service. You haven't factored in the increase in number of households qualifying for the assistance, which has been substantial since 2008. There are millions more people on LIHEAP and fuel costs have not dropped by half.

He is not on a crusade against poor people, he is trying to get this Nation's finances in order.

These cuts amount to a tiny drop in the bucket where the deficit is concerned. This is political posturing at the expense of the poor and it is vile.

[WolfoftheWild]

114. do you not get that most people on LIHEAP use Natural Gas, and that the price has gone down 18%

I don't suppose you have the numbers of people on LIHEAP to back up your claim, do you?

For your theory to be correct, there would have to be more than twice as many people on LIHEAP as in 2008 for it to require twice as much funding.
Especially since the overall cost of energy has gone down based on the chart above.

[Hello_Kitty]

115. If there are more people on LIHEAP than in 2008 with the same funding

Then you have to show that fuel prices have fallen enough since 2008 to offset that increased demand in order to make the claim that service will remain at the same level. Neither you nor the President has done that.

[boppers]

129. "If".

So under your completely hypothetical scenario, your numbers are correct.

[Bonobo]

133. Here are the number. This is why he is right and you are wrong.

Number of Households Using LIHEAP by State			
			
STATE	2008	2009	2010
FED FUNDING	2.57 B	5.1 B	5.1 B
ALASKA			
ALABAMA	64,792	98,714	109,671
ARKANSAS	60,000	75,000	85,000
ARIZONA	25,730	46,483	36,032
CALIFORNIA	165,678	434,141	287,676
COLORADO	92,369	105,736	130,000
CONNECTICUT  86,000	107,336	113,385	
D.C.			
DELAWARE	14,424	17,654	20,265
FLORIDA	73,349	149,416	76,502
GEORGIA	81,735	98,082	250,000
IOWA	86,342	95,234	102,000
IDAHO	32,847	39,416	49,743
ILLINOIS	319,828	415,669	460,146
INDIANA	160,000	197,809	197,800
KANSAS	41,846	46,959	58,700
KENTUCKY	173,840	300,000	330,537
LOUISIANA	17,653	20,831	34,710
MASS.     	144,846	186,160	206,488
MARYLAND	93,198	122,250	134,691
MAINE	47,000	63,000	69,930
MICHIGAN	526,307	633,682	614,589
MINNESOTA	126,229	153,721	164,790
MISSOURI	127,000	147,000	165,700
MISSISSIPPI	61,675	74,010	124,337
MONTANA	18,921	22,048	28,044
NCAROLINA	319,980	383,755	309,595
N DAKOTA	15,315	16,320	16,320
NEBRASKA	33,534	39,281	44,200
NHAMPSHIRE	35,351	44,425	47,215
NEW JERSEY	196,062	295,046	385,510
NEW MEXICO	65,690	69,477	80,000
NEVADA	13,389	24,151	27,500
NEW YORK	895,000	1,200,000	1,260,000
OHIO	387,332	393,681	426,410
OKLAHOMA	83,503	117,780	110,962
OREGON	63,542	98,571	118,000
PENN.             370,873	547,302	602,032	
RH ISLAND	30,038	33,932	37,100
S CAROLINA	13,100	18,218	29,767
TENNESEE	71,061	115,045	112,368
TEXAS	67,475	149,709	150,000
UTAH	32,000	42,453	51,103
VIRGINIA	108,040	122,625	142,905
VERMONT	21,680	26,313	27,850
WASHINGTON 68,023	104,374	148,211	
WISCONSIN	155,000	173,000	215,325
W VIRGINIA     78,122	87,166	11,485	
WYOMING	8,000	12,000	14,393
			
TOTAL	      5,279,150  6,897,565  7,457,223		

[boppers]

134. You're missing a 2011 column, and a 2012 column.

Those would be the numbers affected by the budget change.

"If".

[WolfoftheWild]

135. that's the big catch. they don't factor economic improvement into their equation.

[Hello_Kitty]

137. So where are your numbers with that factored in?

Or is that part of the super secret U.S. Gov't information that's not for our eyes?

[WolfoftheWild]

140. do you notice in the numbers of LIHEAP recipients above that the rate of increase dropped

if those numbers are correct,
from 2008 to 2009 the total increased by 1.6 million people.
from 2009 to 2010 it only increased by 550,000 people.

That is a significant drop in the rate of growth.

Have you considered that this trend will continue?

With Economic Recovery, the number is even likely to begin decreasing.

[Hello_Kitty]

145. A drop in the rate of growth is justification to cut the program in half now?

No, it's not.

[WolfoftheWild]

148. the reason the program amount was doubled was because the Country was in a deep Recession

and 1.6 million new people needed assistance.

You act like this many people will need assistance ad infinitum.

Based on your own numbers, that seems unlikely.

[Hello_Kitty]

150. And you haven't provided numbers that back up the OP's claim.

You haven't shown that decreases in fuel prices offset cutting half the funding to the program. You certainly aren't improving your case with the information that growth in the number of households needing the assistance has decreased. That's not a reduction in the number of people needing it. It's a reduction in the growth of the number of people needing it. That means the number is still growing.

[WolfoftheWild]

154. not if the reduction in rate continues. that means LIHEAP recipients will begin decreasing

if the pattern continues.

I know you don't want to admit this. But you could at least consider it.

Face it, you are convinced of your claims and no matter what evidence I provide, you will ignore it.

You have an axe to grind, so you will. Whether you're actually getting it any sharper is doubtful.

[Bonobo]

141. Huh? There is an unambiguous increase over 3 years.

There are no hard numbers available for 2011 and 2012 obviously, but without an increase in jobs and thus income, how can you expect this to improve?

And WHAT the hell does the proposed budget have to do with the numbers of those using LIHEAP decreasing? Oh yeah, less money for LIHEAP equals less people enrolled.... right.

So the numbers may in fact go down from this point, but it would not represent a lessening of the need, just a lessening of the help.

[WolfoftheWild]

149. is the rate of increase going up or going down?

[Hello_Kitty]

151. Is the actual number of people needing LIHEAP projected to go up or down?

According to the stats you provided the number will go up. And you haven't demonstrated that fuel prices are decreasing enough to offset that.

[WolfoftheWild]

153. why do you choose to ignore the fact I'm pointing out?

The rate of growth decreased dramatically between 2009 and 2010.

If it continues to drop at the same rate, the number of LIHEAP recipients will begin decreasing in 2011-12.

+1.6 million > +550,000 > - 500,000

This is the trend present in the numbers you provided.
It may not continue with these exact figures, but the general direction is evident.

Have you even considered this when making your claims?

[Hello_Kitty]

136. Here's the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities take on it.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3406

Numbers. Numbers that you don't have to back up your claim.

[boppers]

138. Where did they get their 2012 numbers from?

Oh, yeah, they don't have any hard data source for them, IOW, it's made up.

[Hello_Kitty]

142. Did you read the article?

It provides all their sources.

[quakerboy]

167. Do the math using your facts.

Was 5 billion needed in 2009? Unless we are to posit that there were a huge number of nogoodniks sucking at the federal heat assistance teat, we can assume that it was a justified and needed expenditure.

If we then take it that 52% of the need is in natural gas(as per your chart), and that natural gas has dropped 7.8% since last year (as stated by Tekisui above), then its pretty simple math from there. A cut justified by energy cost decreases would be 7.8% of 52% of 5B. 203 million. Of course that would have to be offset with against any increases or decreases in cost other forms of heating from last year, and I will be happy to set out the math if you ask, but for the moment I will isolate it to what you have directly addressed.

.2 billion is a far cry from 2.4 billion. Your facts actually prove that what President Obama said is not accurate. Where are the other 2.2 billion in cuts coming from?


Everything above this makes the assumption that the number of people needing assistance does not increase. The 2009 poverty level was 14.3, or 43.6 million people. Up from 39.8 million people in 2008. Now, as far as I am aware there is not a direct direct tie from poverty to needing LIHEAP, but I think it is a fair number to use to estimate relative need. I cannot seem to find any data on the census bureau site for 2010 poverty levels yet. Do you think it decreased by 50%?

[Autumn]

111. Common sense , maybe

If poor and elderly people freeze to death, they won't be using any medicaid, medicare, food stamps, or social security. That would take care of those pesky entitlement programs. More like no sense.

[BklnDem75]

112. Prices peaked in mid 2008

There was a budget increase because energy prices peaked in July 2008. In both 2009 and 2010, the budget remained the same though prices dropped to pre-crisis levels. Now he's attempting to bring the budget back to pre-crisis levels. Should we stay at crisis levels forever?


'From the mid-1980s to September 2003, the inflation-adjusted price of a barrel of crude oil on NYMEX was generally under $25/barrel. During 2003, the price rose above $30, reached $60 by August 11, 2005, and peaked at $147.30 in July 2008.<1> Commentators attributed these price increases to many factors, including reports from the United States Department of Energy and others showing a decline in petroleum reserves,<2> worries over peak oil,<3> Middle East tension, and oil price speculation.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_energy_crisis


Really folks... it wasn't that long ago.

*Not a response to the OP, but for those who can't bother to see why the budget was raised in the first place.

[Hello_Kitty]

116. You have not substantiated the claim the OP made

Which is that you can cut the LIHEAP funding back to 2008 levels while maintaining the same level of services. You haven't shown that fuel cost decreases (and most people don't use oil to heat their homes BTW) are enough to offset the increase in the number of LIHEAP eligible households since 2008.

[BklnDem75]

118. You keep copying and pasting that

I substantiated Obama's claim. There's no excuse for crisis funding every year, period. You can't be both for and against fixing the deficit only to lay into this President. Pick a side and be consistent.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bonobo]

119. I can only compare this to a Bush move in its stunning contempt for the truth.

As I said, I looked at the numbers, the real numbers.

I posted them here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=419042

The numbers I examined and scrutinized were from here:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wfr_a_EPD2F_prs_dpgal_w.htm.

That is the U.S. Energy Information Administration. They are
te real numbers and the numbers do not like. I will post them,
and if you care about the truth as opposed to just believing
bullshit, you will change your minds about this OP.

These are the real numbers



HEATING OIL COSTS
MTH/YR	     COST/GALLON     	COST/GALLON
	     EAST COAST (PADD 1)	MIDWEST (PADD 2)
	     (CT,MN,MA,NH,RI,VT)	(IL,IN,IO,KT,MI,MN,NE,OH,WI)
OCT '07	              2.847	                  2.845
NOV '07	              3.208	                  3.166
DEC '07	              3.302	                  3.092
JAN '08	              3.380	                  3.065
FEB '08	              3.389	                  3.144
MAR '08	              3.731	                  3.564
		
OCT '08	              3.348	                  3.200
NOV '08	              2.896	                  2.576
DEC '08	              2.554	                  2.123
JAN '09	              2.445	                  2.020
FEB '09	              2.365	                  1.899
MAR '09	              2.229	                  1.775
		
OCT '09	              2.615	                  2.378
NOV '09	              2.761	                  2.51
DEC '09	              2.788	                  2.471
JAN '10	              2.955	                  2.583
FEB '10	              2.894	                  2.532
MAR '10	              2.715	                  2.604
				
OCT '10	              2.969	                  2.648
NOV '10	              3.092	                  2.86
DEC '10	              3.277	                  2.966
JAN '11	              3.433	                  3.065
FEB '11	              3.606	                  3.199

[MNBrewer]

120. well.....

<http://wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/heat-f12.shtml>

[WolfoftheWild]

122. that article has a ton of its facts wrong.

LIHEAP was at 2.5 billion in 2008.

In 2009, it went to over 5 billion.
In 2010, it was just under 5 billion.

Obama wants to return it to the 2008 level. That is hardly the Clinton Years.

[MNBrewer]

124. SO that's a ton of facts?

But hey... it's Obama, so it's cool, right?

[WolfoftheWild]

147. the article was badly researched. that is obvious from the first paragraph.

[chill_wind]

156. Sure it was, LOL.

What Others Say About the Center

* “Some months ago, faced with my own philanthropic dilemma, I began informally polling friends, sources and readers to get a sense of which organizations carry weight in both foreign- and domestic-policy negotiations. On domestic policy, the name that kept coming up was the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It leans left, but people on both sides admire its empirical rigor, focus on policy and fierce advocacy. It is widely acknowledged as having a voice in both the White House and Congress.”
- Ezra Klein, The Washington Post

* “The invaluable Center on Budget and Policy Priorities … been the go-to resource for consistently reliable analysis on matters of budgets and fiscal policy at every level of government.”
- Vice President Biden

* “n a political environment rife with ideological warfare and poisoned by partisanship, the Center’s knack for getting things done sets it apart from . . . well, from just about everybody else in Washington.”
- Steven Pearlstein, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post

* “The Center is one of the nation’s premier policy organizations. Its analysis is used by policymakers and nonprofit organizations across the political spectrum.”
- Independent Sector

* “Among the alphabet soup of think tanks and partisan advocacy groups covering tax and budget issues, the CBPP has carved out a niche as being socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and academically rigorous.”
- CQ Today

* “or more than 20 years has established itself as the premier authority on budgetary issues … because its record for scrupulous accuracy is unblemished and because the Center’s work is as carefully consumed by the government officials it watches as by the activists it serves.”
- Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe

* “ statistical work is absolutely impeccable. If you care about , check CBPP’s site regularly for updates.”
- New York Times columnist Paul Krugman

* “ experience — focusing on the production of rigorous, high-quality work that is organized around a commitment to low-income citizens — suggests that it is possible to exhibit both commitment and rigor.”

- Beryl Radin, Beyond Machiavelli: Policy Analysis Comes of Age

http://www.cbpp.org/about/

Self edited to be polite.

[MNBrewer]

125. looks roughly equivalent to me

<http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3406&emailView=1>

[chill_wind]

131. And cutting to piece's conclusion, with some disturbing projections

on the poverty numbers. With or without the cuts, this is some worrisome picture...

The Number of Households in Need Is Much Higher than in 2008

The Administration’s proposed cut also fails to account for the rise in poverty since 2008. In 2009, as the recession took hold, the number of poor persons rose by 3.7 million or 9 percent, by official estimates. The annual unemployment rate leapt from 5.8 percent in 2008 to 9.3 percent in 2009.


By 2012, moreover, the population in poverty is likely to have grown even more. According to CBO, unemployment is projected to be 8.4 percent in 2012, still well above its 2008 level. Poverty tends to rise following increases in the unemployment rate and does not start to decline until after the unemployment rate has started to fall. From 2008 to 2009, when the unemployment rate rose 3.5 percentage points, the official poverty rate rose 1.1 percentage points. If not for the poverty-cushioning impact of unemployment benefits — which increased rapidly in 2009, due in large part to temporary emergency unemployment programs enacted by Congress — the increase in the poverty rate would have been even larger, about 1.9 percentage points.

If this relation between poverty rates and unemployment continues and the U.S. population continues to grow at nearly 1 percent annually, the number of Americans in poverty will be roughly 15 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2008. Some estimates are even higher: a September 2010 Brookings analysis projected that the poverty rate could reach 15.3 percent in 2012, putting the number of poor Americans 20 percent higher than in 2008.

With home energy prices during the winter heating season as high as they were in 2008 and a population in need that is 15-20 percent higher, the President’s proposed LIHEAP funding level would serve a much lower percentage of households than were served prior to 2009.

Conclusion

If the Administration’s goal in cutting LIHEAP funding back to the 2008 level is to restore “normal” funding levels to a program that received a large increase in 2009-11, it has missed the mark. Home energy prices in the fiscal year 2012 winter heating season are expected to be about the same as they were in the fiscal year 2008 winter heating season — not noticeably lower, as the Administration’s rationale for the cut implies. In addition, the population in need of energy assistance will be considerably larger in 2012 than it was in 2008. For all these reasons, establishing the 2008 funding level as the baseline for LIHEAP in 2012 will leave a higher percentage of the eligible population unserved or underserved than in 2008 or prior years.

[Bonobo]

127. If you feel so, please read this You shouldn't fear reading a full analysis.

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Administration’s Rationale for Severe Cut in Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Is Weak

Poverty and Income
The President’s 2012 budget proposes cutting funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) from the $5.1 billion enacted for 2010 to just $2.57 billion, a 50 percent reduction. The Administration’s rationale is that Congress sharply increased LIHEAP funding for fiscal year 2009 in response to a substantial energy price spike in 2008, and that the proposed cut merely “returns LIHEAP funding to historic levels received for 2008 prior to the energy price spikes.” As the following analysis shows, however, this rationale is unpersuasive in three respects.
Funding for LIHEAP in 2007 and 2008 had fallen behind increases in energy prices, making the 2008 funding level a poor standard for next year’s funding level. (See Figure 1.)
While the Administration correctly notes that home energy prices are lower now than when they peaked in mid-2008, the prices that matter most for LIHEAP are those in the winter heating season. Department of Energy forecasts show that next winter these prices will be back to their 2007-2008 levels and will be higher than in any other winter heating season in the 2000-2010 period.
As a result of the 2007-2009 recession and the sharp increase in poverty and unemployment, the number of low-income households eligible for and needing home energy assistance in 2012 will be much larger than it was in 2008.
Thus, cutting LIHEAP back to 2008 levels would significantly shrink the already-low percentage of eligible low-income households that the program would be able to help. Put another way, cutting LIHEAP back to 2008 levels would mean a sharp reduction in LIHEAP’s effectiveness, not a return to “normal.”

MORE AT

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3406

[CreekDog]

128. energy prices are higher than at the beginning of FY2008 (October 2007) when $2.8B was the level

now it's 2.5B.

with more people in poverty, higher unemployment, etc. etc.

and subtract $300 million from that October 2007 level.

someone's misinformed or lying.

[boppers]

132. How many people are are on LIHEAP, and was the energy company subsidy excessive?

If I have 5 oranges, give them away to five people who need them, and increase it to ten oranges, but only 5 oranges were needed, I'm wasting 5 oranges (or, rather, I'm subsidizing orange growers).

I'm shocked at how many people support a multi-billion dollar giveaway to energy companies, when it's couched in the "right" terms.

[Hello_Kitty]

139. It was not "excessive"

http://liheap.org/fact_sheets.html

Click on each state and see how nearly all of them have seen substantial increases in LIHEAP households. Also take note of how many more people are eligible for the assistance than are receiving it.

[Bonobo]

143. That link is the source of my compiled state by state stats. nt

[boppers]

159. I didn't see a single state that doubled....

So, why did the budget double?

Costs also did not double....

Are you arguing that applications, and costs, created a doubling? (Hint: it didn't).

[slipslidingaway]

160. This link, check Vermont...

http://www.neada.org/communications/press/2011-02-06LIHEAP11ProjServed.pdf

"LIHEAP Winter Heating Households Served FY 10 & FY 11 Projected Based on Eligible Applications"

[boppers]

161. Outliers which don't even double...

Vermont went from 27K to 45K.

Two times 27 is.... not 45K (it's 54K, for those who aren't following, and lack basic math skills).

Did you also look at Washington numbers in that link? 0%. Georgia? -8.6%.

Closest one (Florida), at 49.7, didn't double (but it's close).

[chill_wind]

152. And I'm always astounded at the relative silence on the billions and trillions "lost" and defrauded

by the unaccountables and untouchables at the Pentagon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x462750#462813

I'd rather subsidize a few orange growers to help people at the bottom with their most essentail needs, over contractor mercenary types, their bosses and others in the killing business- already at the top of the income heap. For them, there is never ever enough. What we won't give them, they will freely steal.

The economists like Krugman and Galbraith declaring the whole budget debate process essentially fraudulent couldn't be more right.

[boppers]

175. Well, in this case, the "Orange Growers" are often multinational fossil energy companies.

Though, your post did get me thinking about putting funding into better "Orange Growers".... rather than a payment to some energy company, for another round of fossil fuel energy, why not free wood-pellet stoves, or solar systems, or for people in complexes, free reactors? (I realize the latter will upset some, the idea is alternatives)

[OwnedByFerrets]

130. What falling energy prices??

[midnight armadillo]

144. I cut my oil use my 16% and the bills went UP!

How? Easy - the price per gallon of heating oil went up by 20%, which means I paid more than last year despite my efforts.


These are the facts. The logic here is pretty easy to follow, so I hope those who are so concerned about this issue are more informed now.

Money talks, bullshit walks.

[old mark]

162. Mr. Obama said that very thing a week ago in a press conference...

I guess some people were too busy yelling about the "cuts" to understand the reasons....


mark

[Mass]

163. So, the entire Northeastern delegation are all crazy anti-Obama people

from the left? Because you cant find anybody who agrees that these cuts are good.

[boppers]

177. "So, the entire Northeastern delegation are all crazy"

Yes, but we *totally* love you anyways.

Signed:
The crazy Pacific Northwest.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Safetykitten]

168. Energy prices are dropping? Really?

[QC]

171. I wish someone would inform my local gas company of this fact.

I have been getting skinned alive on the heat bills, and I live in Florida, for pete's sake.

[frustrated_lefty]

169. Common sense? Or fuzzy math.

[Beacool]

170. What dropping energy prices???????

The barrel of crude keeps going up.

:eyes:

[girl_interrupted]

172. Rapidly rising gas, oil prices hammer LI

Rapidly rising gas, oil prices hammer LI
Published: February 21, 2011 9:21 PM

Fast-rising gasoline and heating oil prices are hammering Long Islanders.

Monday's average price of regular unleaded gas is up 58 cents a gallon from a year ago to $3.43, and diesel is up almost 70 cents, to an average of $3.81. Heating oil is averaging $3.75 a gallon - almost 74 cents higher than a year ago.

Across Long Island, residents and business owners are making changes to reduce costs as they face the squeeze caused by higher prices.

Oil prices jumped by more than $4 a barrel Monday.Other factors driving the increase include a decline in the dollar's value, which has made oil futures, priced in dollars, more attractive to investors with foreign currencies; unexpected refinery outages affecting Northeast gas prices; and cold weather, which is spurring demand for heating oil.

"Prices have been led higher by the worldwide demand for distillate fuel," which, in turn, has increased demand for crude oil . . . and gasoline prices have been drawn up with it," he said.

Though experts differ over whether and when motorists will see relief at the gas pump, one thing is certain: Higher prices pose greater challenges to car-dependent Long Islanders already struggling to cope with economic pressures.



http://www.newsday.com/business/rapidly-rising-gas-oil-prices-hammer-li-1.2704190

[Beacool]

173. That's what I meant.

I'm delighted if the Obama administration decided not to cut LIHEAP funding, but energy costs are not dropping. Earlier today I talked to a friend who lives in CA and she said that gasoline in her area is at $3.75 per gallon. In NJ gas prices are much better, but they are still around $3.05. The cheapest that I saw was on Saturday at a BP gas station which had it at $2.99 (where I made sure I filled the tank). The ME unrest is affecting the cost of crude. I cringe to think how much we'll have to pay this summer.

:(

[Bonobo]

174. People in the northeast apparently do not count.

I wonder if it has something to do with them being expendable solid blue voters???? Hmm....

[ClarkUSA]

180. For proof, see Reply #106. Oil prices spiked yesterday due to the crisis in Libya.

At the time President Obama made the remarks quoted in the OP - i.e., on the morning of February 15 - the numbers did indeed back him up. I'm not talking about cherrypicking prices of one specific fuel, such as oil, over a short period of time, as you seem to be doing or only referencing heating oil prices, as Bonobo is doing (even though less than 8% of Americans rely on it):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=615260&mesg_id=615583

Here are the facts, as explained in Reply #106 (thanks to WolfoftheWild):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=614721&mesg_id=615226

As for your comment, I do hope you and girl_interrrupted are not blaming President Obama for not being able to predict the future. That seems a bit unfair, given that there was no signs of serious unrest in Libya on the morning of Feb. 15.

22 February 2011 Last updated at 01:40 ET
Libya unrest leads to rise in oil price

The price of oil has risen in response to the turmoil in Libya.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12522291

A quick read of the economic news headlines from yesterday and today (see above) will confirm my claim. In fact, right after I read about oil prices spiking due to the troubles in Libya, I filled up my gas tank before my local station could hike them Hours later, prices at that station jumped 5¢.

[Number23]

181. AWESOME thread, Clark!

Too late to rec but I can kick!