So I'll equate this, Congress not following suit indicates they are anti-American when it comes to energy independence. Burn the Traitors.

Slash, are you saying if it is symbolic, that AMerica wouldn't be better off and the price wouldn't be much lower if we had an additional 5-10 million barrels per day from our own source?

No, it won't, and if you really want more oil produced here, the price needs to stay high. Look up North Dakota, there's drilling all over the state but companies like Exxon aren't even there because they don't "gamble", they only want subsidized, guaranteed profits.

I would like to see prices drop too, but we as Americans were too lazy to invest in alternatives when oil was cheap, now only with higher prices are we finally getting on board, and hopefully we'll become the world leader in alternatives.

__________________
Obama/Biden 2008

You suck at "equating" and the phrase "anti-American" is grossly overused IMO.

Did you not understand what I typed?
It's "symbolic" as in nobody's drilling until congress says it's okay.

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto

Ventura/ Paul '12

Perhaps. But now America knows that Pelosi and her ilk are the only thing standing in the way of drilling and improving the situation.

Which is precisely the point of even bringing it up. It is an election year, after all.
Are "Pelosi and her ilk" responsible for high oil prices because they're not allowing offshore drilling? Yes. Are "Bush and his ilk" responsible for high oil prices due to their mid east adventurism? Yes.
Both sides are responsible and both sides point the finger at each other. You wanna paint a picture, be sure to paint the whole thing

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto

Ventura/ Paul '12

Whatever the reasons, it's a good thing. I suspect the Middle East oil countries are starting to realize that the U.S. is serious about going after our own supply, which may cause them to release more of their supply. After all they WANT the U.S. to continue to be under their thumb regarding this resource. BUT, of course, we should see right through that and continue to drill, drill, drill.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Oil is down $11 a barrel over the last two days.

__________________

If I may make a quick comment here. The drop in oil prices was because of data released by the The Energy Information Administration this week. They reported that U.S. crude oil supplies rose by 3 million barrels last week. It was expected that supplies would FALL by 3 million barrels. Gasoline supplies were also up when they were supposed to be down. The news shocked the market in a good way, resulting in the decline in prices.

Even a promise to drill, with approval from all involved, would not affect supply for 5-10 years, so even if you got some drop in oil prices it would last about a day. Only an actual increase in supply or an actual drop in demand will lower oil prices. Promises to drill do neither and don't impact the price after a day or two goes by. Now, if OPEC agreed to step up production in a few months it would lower prices. That's real. A promise to drill oil that we will not see for 5-10 years is nothing.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

A comprehensive energy plan, not just a plan for more drilling could impact oil prices for a timeline extending beyond "a day or two" as you put it. Speculatory costs would plummit if the US made plans to sever its ties to foreign energy. We're the worlds largest consumer, so by adjusting our aggregate demand the price of the commodity would fall to reflect our changes in investment.

__________________