[RunItUpTheGut]

NEW YORK (AP) — For the first time, the top export of the United States, the world's biggest gas guzzler, is — wait for it — fuel.

Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels.

Just how big of a shift is this? A decade ago, fuel wasn't even among the top 25 exports. And for the last five years, America's top export was aircraft.

The trend is significant because for decades the U.S. has relied on huge imports of fuel from Europe in order to meet demand. It only reinforced the image of America as an energy hog. And up until a few years ago, whenever gasoline prices climbed, there were complaints in Congress that U.S. refiners were not growing quickly enough to satisfy domestic demand; that controversy would appear to be over.

Still, the U.S. is nowhere close to energy independence. America is still the world's largest importer of crude oil. From January to October, the country imported 2.7 billion barrels of oil worth roughly $280 billion.

Fuel exports, worth an estimated $88 billion in 2011, have surged for two reasons:

— Crude oil, the raw material from which gasoline and other refined products are made, is a lot more expensive. Oil prices averaged $95 a barrel in 2011, while gasoline averaged $3.52 a gallon — a record. A decade ago oil averaged $26 a barrel, while gasoline averaged $1.44 a gallon.

— The volume of fuel exports is rising. The U.S. is using less fuel because of a weak economy and more efficient cars and trucks. That allows refiners to sell more fuel to rapidly growing economies in Latin America, for example. In 2011, U.S. refiners exported 117 million gallons per day of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products, up from 40 million gallons per day a decade earlier.

There's at least one domestic downside to America's growing role as a fuel exporter. Experts say the trend helps explain why U.S. motorists are paying more for gasoline. The more fuel that's sent overseas, the less of a supply cushion there is at home.

Gasoline supplies are being exported to the highest bidder, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service. "It's a world market," he says.

Refining companies won't say how much they make by selling fuel overseas. But analysts say those sales are likely generating higher profits per gallon than they would have generated in the U.S. Otherwise, they wouldn't occur.

The value of U.S. fuel exports has grown steadily over the past decade, coinciding with rising oil prices and increased demand around the globe.

Developing countries in Latin America and Asia have been burning more gasoline and diesel as their people buy more cars and build more roads and factories. Europe also has been buying more U.S. fuel to make up for its lack of refineries.

And there's a simple reason why America's refiners have been eager to export to these markets: gasoline demand in the U.S. has been falling every year since 2007. It dropped by another 2.5 percent in 2011. With the economy struggling, motorists cut back. Also, cars and trucks have become more fuel-efficient and the government mandates the use of more corn-based ethanol fuel.

The last time the U.S. was a net exporter of fuels was 1949, when Harry Truman was president. That year, the U.S. exported 86 million barrels and imported 82 million barrels. In the first ten months of 2011, the nation exported 848 million barrels (worth $73.4 billion) and imported 750 million barrels.

http://news.yahoo.com/first-gas-other-fu...39553.html

[RunItUpTheGut]

Yea, instead of trying to keep all the fuel here that we possibly can lets let oil tycoons line there pocketss and get rich while people like us pay over 3 dollars a gallon for gas and spend a quarter of there paycheck a week on gas.

I swear this is the NUMBER 1 thing on my agenda for America.
You give me somebody who can fix the fuel price problem, and ill vote for him every day of the week.
BECAUSE, fix it and Americans will spend A LOT more money on other stuff. This crap is getting ridicolous.

If it even can be fixed, please fix it.

Yours truly,

A NON foodstamp/welfare receipient American Citizen who pays his taxes.

P.S. You can still charge the welfare receipients 3 dollars a gallon for gas.

[TheRealThing]

Yea, instead of trying to keep all the fuel here that we possibly can lets let oil tycoons line there pocketss and get rich while people like us pay over 3 dollars a gallon for gas and spend a quarter of there paycheck a week on gas.

I swear this is the NUMBER 1 thing on my agenda for America.
You give me somebody who can fix the fuel price problem, and ill vote for him every day of the week.
BECAUSE, fix it and Americans will spend A LOT more money on other stuff. This crap is getting ridicolous.

If it even can be fixed, please fix it.

Yours truly,

A NON foodstamp/welfare receipient American Citizen who pays his taxes.

P.S. You can still charge the welfare receipients 3 dollars a gallon for gas.

I guarantee you if Obama could sell every last drop of it he would do just that. We're all about green stuff. Conestoga wagons HO!

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
lol

[Hoot Gibson]

The only things that our government can do to impact gasoline prices that I can think of are:

1. Lower excise taxes on the sale of gasoline.

2. Increase the supply of domestic oil by opening up areas such as ANWR for drilling.

3. Cut the number of grades of gasoline mandated by the EPA in certain urban areas to reduce production costs. Give states a bigger role in regulating gasoline sales and the EPA a smaller role. If California wants $4.00/gal. gas, then let them have it.

[vector]

Regulate them just like they do the electric company's make them
Open there books and show why they need to raise there prices

[vector]

3. Cut the number of grades of gasoline mandated by the EPA in certain urban areas to reduce production costs. Give states a bigger role in regulating gasoline sales and the EPA a smaller role. If California wants $4.00/gal. gas, then let them have it.



Hoot your start sounding like a democrat

[Hoot Gibson]

3. Cut the number of grades of gasoline mandated by the EPA in certain urban areas to reduce production costs. Give states a bigger role in regulating gasoline sales and the EPA a smaller role. If California wants $4.00/gal. gas, then let them have it.



Hoot your start sounding like a democrat

Not at all. Liberal Democrats generally oppose states' 10th Amendment rights. Conservatives have always advocated government being enacted and enforced as locally as possible. The people of California should have as much control over their own environment as possible, as should the people of each of the other 49 states.

[vector]

What happen to section 8 of the Constitution

You republicans want to leave everything up to the states but every time
You get something you do not like you sue in federal court and hope it
Lands in the supreme court

[Hoot Gibson]

What happen to section 8 of the Constitution

You republicans want to leave everything up to the states but every time
You get something you do not like you sue in federal court and hope it
Lands in the supreme court

I am not a Republican and I have never filed any kind of suit in my life. Section 8 of the US Constitution is irrelevant in this discussion. My suggestions of what the federal government can do to lower gasoline prices have nothing to do with the Constitution. Even where federal meddling in free markets is constitution, the Constitution does not require the federal government to impose burdensome regulations that increase the cost of gasoline in some areas of the country.

[vector]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;




Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD




BTW I am not a democrat

[Hoot Gibson]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;




Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD




BTW I am not a democrat

The General Welfare clause was never intended to give elected officials to run roughshod over the rights of states - and the Tenth Amendment reinforces that point.

[INDENT]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[/INDENT]

[RunItUpTheGut]

Does anyone remember the times when being an independent caused you to be looked at wierd?
Now, IMHO, its better to be independant and just choose the best candidate possible. I am a registered Republican and always have been, but both parties have there down falls, i think everyone could agree with that.
Any chance a new party could ever get the funding and or backing to seriously challenge for a presidential nomination every year?

[Hoot Gibson]

Does anyone remember the times when being an independent caused you to be looked at wierd?
Now, IMHO, its better to be independant and just choose the best candidate possible. I am a registered Republican and always have been, but both parties have there down falls, i think everyone could agree with that.
Any chance a new party could ever get the funding and or backing to seriously challenge for a presidential nomination every year?

I don't see any virtue in being an "independent" versus a being Republican (or even a Democratk j/k), especially if "independent" is taken as a synonym for "moderate."

In general, I have found that moderates lack knowledge of current events, the political process, and any historical perspective. Even worse, they usually express an air of moral superiority by virtue of having declared themselves to be "moderate" - everything just has to be better in moderation, right? They take great satisfaction in declaring that they always vote for the best candidate in an election, regardless of party - while implying or stating outright that only less enlightened people vote a straight party ticket.

Conservatives and liberals are generally much more motivated to participate in campaigns and learn about issues than moderates. Of course there are exceptions, but not many - and that is why Democrats run to the left and Republicans run to the right during the primary season. Nominations cannot be won without the support of large numbers of party activists and moderates are always underrepresented in that area.

I do not consider myself a Republican but in national elections, I vote for the most conservative candidate running who has a chance of winning, unless that person happens to be a Democrat. In state and local elections, I try to vote for the most conservative or most competent candidate, depending on the office, regardless of party affiliation.

IMO, the only thing that will break the current monopoly of Republicans and Democrats in our government will be the total collapse of our economic system.The chance of a collapse happening during the next 10 years is not unlikely, IMO. Otherwise, most third party votes will continue to be meaningless gestures having no effect on elections. Even if a third party rises to prominence, it will most likely be led by former political heavyweights from one of the two major parties - not by politically naive moderates.

[SKINNYPIG]

Am I way off base by saying that "moderates/independents" should have been very happy with Clinton and Bush 1&2? And they should have been salivating at the chance to vote for McCain. I can also see where moderates/independents would not favor Reagan, and would also be terribly dissatisfied with Obama.

[Hoot Gibson]

Am I way off base by saying that "moderates/independents" should have been very happy with Clinton and Bush 1&2? And they should have been salivating at the chance to vote for McCain. I can also see where moderates/independents would not favor Reagan, and would also be terribly dissatisfied with Obama.

Moderates supported Reagan in large numbers because he was an effective leader who was able to get legislation passed through Congress even though the House was controlled by Democrats throoughout his two terms. Moderates have not been happy with Obama because he has been unable to work with Republicans in Congress and his signature legislation has been passed with very little bipartisan support.

I think that moderates were generally supportive of Clinton and Bush 1 because, like Reagan, both were very effective in getting their legislative agendas passed into law with bipartisan support. Bush 2 also worked with Democrats to get legislation passed, but he did not seem to get much credit for his efforts (e.g., the No Child Left Behind bill an the Iraq war resolution).

[RunItUpTheGut]

I don't see any virtue in being an "independent" versus a being Republican (or even a Democratk j/k), especially if "independent" is taken as a synonym for "moderate."

In general, I have found that moderates lack knowledge of current events, the political process, and any historical perspective. Even worse, they usually express an air of moral superiority by virtue of having declared themselves to be "moderate" - everything just has to be better in moderation, right? They take great satisfaction in declaring that they always vote for the best candidate in an election, regardless of party - while implying or stating outright that only less enlightened people vote a straight party ticket.

Conservatives and liberals are generally much more motivated to participate in campaigns and learn about issues than moderates. Of course there are exceptions, but not many - and that is why Democrats run to the left and Republicans run to the right during the primary season. Nominations cannot be won without the support of large numbers of party activists and moderates are always underrepresented in that area.

I do not consider myself a Republican but in national elections, I vote for the most conservative candidate running who has a chance of winning, unless that person happens to be a Democrat. In state and local elections, I try to vote for the most conservative or most competent candidate, depending on the office, regardless of party affiliation.

IMO, the only thing that will break the current monopoly of Republicans and Democrats in our government will be the total collapse of our economic system.The chance of a collapse happening during the next 10 years is not unlikely, IMO. Otherwise, most third party votes will continue to be meaningless gestures having no effect on elections. Even if a third party rises to prominence, it will most likely be led by former political heavyweights from one of the two major parties - not by politically naive moderates.

Great post hoot.
I couldnt agree more.