A new doctrine

[ThaSaltCracka]

HOLY [censored]!!!!
I just went to the gas station today for the first time in a week or to. $1.fuckin 96 a gallon!!!! are you kidding me???
My new doctrine is whenever something happens I don't like, whether its high gas prices, wars, unemployment, road rage, mariners loosing, etc.... I am going to blame Bush. Why?because I feel like it /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Bush, I am pretty sure a 1988 Mazda 323 was never intended to have $2 a gallon gasoline in its tank, the only brightside is I get 34 MPG, I feel bad for you stupid SUV owners. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Do something about it or else I might vote for Nader /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush, I am pretty sure a 1988 Mazda 323 was never intended to have $2 a gallon gasoline in its tank, the only brightside is I get 34 MPG, I feel bad for you stupid SUV owners. Do something about it or else I might vote for Nader

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Bush wants to drill in Anwar(sp), but the tree huggers won't let him. What the need to do is standardize the blend across the nation.


Whats Nadars plan for lowering the price of gasoline anyways?

Stu

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Whats Nadars plan for lowering the price of gasoline anyways?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think he has a plan for anything. Basically a vote for Nadar is a vote for nothing IMO.

[M2d]

If gas got to 1.96 a gallon down here, I think you'd see tommy, ja, ulysses and all the other +EV folk using their poker bankrolls to stockpile gasoline in anticipation of the next inevitable spike in prices.

[MMMMMM]

I wonder at just what hypothetical price the "No Blood For Oil" folks might start changing their tune. Do you think they'd still be saying that if it was $30.00 a gallon?

[HDPM]

[Il_Mostro]

As i've said before... come back when you pay in excess of 4$/gallon...

Plus, i really really belive that you folks need to raise prices on gas, and that by a fair bit...

[MMMMMM]

What I don't understand is why Europe seems to like high gas prices. Talk about masochistic...

[Il_Mostro]

nah, not that I like it, but seeing what excessive transportation does to our environment, i'll take high gas prices...

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
My new doctrine is whenever something happens I don't like, whether its high gas prices, wars, unemployment, road rage, mariners loosing, etc.... I am going to blame Bush. Why?because I feel like it /images/graemlins/cool.gif



[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't re-elect me, you won't be able to blame me for the next 5 years. I don't mind taking your abuse. It's one of the duties of being President. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

http://www.flagw.com/Merchandise_images/minidecal_c.jpg

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
As i've said before... come back when you pay in excess of 4$/gallon...

[/ QUOTE ]
I like I said, the price doesn't bother me to much, I get over 30 mpg, but I wonder about those people with SUV's, how they feel about it.

BTW, stupid Europe can keep their excessive prices. You guys seem to enjoy paying that much and you seem to enjoy bitching to everyone about it. I will be sure to cry a tear for the huge gas prices in Europe. I wonder if it has anything to do with all the big V8+ Mercedes, Audis, and BMW's over there????

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't re-elect me, you won't be able to blame me for the next 5 years. I don't mind taking your abuse. It's one of the duties of being President.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you don't get re-elected a new punching bag will, don't worry, the blame goes both ways(atleast from me).

[Cyrus]

even higher oil prices.

pace E. Luttwak.

[ThaSaltCracka]

or finding a different source for energy.

[Cyrus]

You understood.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
or finding a different source for energy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why I think the prices of gas should be higher. I think it would be bad for a short period of time but long term we would be better off. Consider public transportation systems in Europe and here. They are much better off in that respect.

A sensible energy policy that involved permanently reducing our need (not just putting a band-aid on by getting the 3 gallons of oil from Anwar) would also aid our war on terrorism because we could distance ourselves with such excellent allies as the Saudis.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, I'm afraid to say that this is the most boneheaded idea I've come across in quite a long time.

Encouraging development of alternate energy sources is fine and dandy--but it is NOT the same as discouraging energy consumption. Artificially higher oil prices will NOT encourage companies to develop economically feasible alternate energy sources--only genuine opportunities for profits will encourage the massive investment in R&D necessary for such development.

Great consumer pain (if oil prices go way up) will only stifle the economy and deepen any recession. Almost all businesses will become FAR less profitable if oil prices go way up, and unemployment will skyrocket. There is nothing that adversely impacts our overall economy quite as severely as do higher oil prices.

I can't believe anyone as intelligent as you would think much higher oil prices a good idea, unless you just didn't really think it through very well yet, or unless you happen to own an oil well somewhere.

Granted you didn't exactly say so in so many words and your comments were quite terse, but if I can paraphrase Clint Eastwood here, "I know what you're thinking, Cyrus..."

And a side note to jdl: national energy policies sound great, but to have much effect, it all has to make economic sense. If it doesn't it won't fly very well for very long. And by 'make economic sense', I mean there has to be a profit somewhere, some greater efficiency, some demonstrable ROI, etc. It won't fly very far or hold very well if it just "sounds like something we ought to be doing."

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly why I think the prices of gas should be higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, wonder who doubling or tripling the price of gasoline would hurt the most, the poor, middle class, or the rich? Wonder how much of a drag that would be on economic growth and how many jobs would be lost due to the resulting slower economic growth?

[ QUOTE ]
Consider public transportation systems in Europe and here. They are much better off in that respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are they bettor off? I might be more than a little concerned given the events in Madrid. The truth of the matter is that big government does not have a solution to all problems. And what is the problem anyway? I can get all the gasoline I want.

[Cyrus]

Higher taxes on oil products (including gasoline) are not gonna happen anytime soon in the United States. That, nonetheless, is the proper way to go about things if we are seriously interested in developing economically viable alternative sources of energy.

The math is simple : We are depleting the environmental resources of the future generations; a tax (partially) compensates for that, among other things. As to the oil itself, we are depleting within two or three centuries something that took millions of years to be created. And we base the whole of our economies on it.

Where is the smart play in this ?

Finally now, the rest of the world is coming onboard the development train. China's two billion people are gonna be motorists soon. Put it simply, the world's ecosystem will be tested to its limits when carbon dioxide increases by that factor. I guess we can afford to see the system failing.

Where is the smart play in this ?

[Cyrus]

"[I] wonder who doubling or tripling the price of gasoline would hurt the most, the poor, middle class, or the rich?"

Like the flat tax rate, it would hurt the poor more, than the middle class, and least of all the rich guys.

But a gasoline tax is essentially (has become) an environment tax. It is no longer an infrastructure tax, IMO. And rich man or poor man, each individual is contributing almost equally to pollution. (Some rich folks actually pollute less because they have better cars. But then they get around more. And what about those middle class SUVs?)

So, yes it hurts the weak most. No problem financially or environmentally - only politically.

"Wonder how much of a drag that would be on economic growth and how many jobs would be lost due to the resulting slower economic growth?"

Ah, here is the holy gist of the matter!

I will whisper this so as not to scare the horses : Pssst. --It's high time we slow growth.-- It is a runaway train. Imagine two billion Chinese adopting a car culture identical to the American one. Then do the math.

...Hey, if you tell anyone I said this, I will deny it.

"Why are [public transportation systems] bettor off [in Europe]? I might be more than a little concerned given the events in Madrid."

They are better off. Have you ever been to Europe?

As to the Madrid attack, one cannot base one's transportation policy purely on the dangers of terrorism. Yes, the Spanish trains were vulnerable but the math are overwhelmingly in their favor, as also in favor of all mass transportation systems versus the automobile.

"The truth of the matter is that big government does not have a solution to all problems."

This is not about Big Brother. This is about a consensus that is needed. No government can impose something as unpopular as a (substantially) higher gasoline tax. The people will need to be convinced, either by logic(!) or by an environmental effect of grand scale. And the scales will be tipped. Stay tuned.

"And what is the problem anyway? I can get all the gasoline I want."

That gasoline has travelled a looong way to reach your car's tank.

[jdl22]

The doubling or tripling of gas would affect the rich and poor in completely different ways. The rich would lose money due to increased costs while the poor would suffer unemployment.

In the end though I think that the rich and poor alike would be better off. Reduced demand for oil in the US would help fight the terrorist threat rather drastically because we would no longer need to support foreign countries that are funding the terrorists.

As for the Madrid bombings they are hardly the result of increased use of public transportation. Having used the subway in Madrid and taken the AVE (high speed train - they found a bomb on the tracks last week) from Sevilla to Madrid several times I assure you that the Spanish are much better off in terms of public transportation.

Would you also argue that Americans aren't as well of as the Europeans in air travel because of Al Qaeda? That would be ridiculous but no more so than your argument.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The doubling or tripling of gas would affect the rich and poor in completely different ways. The rich would lose money due to increased costs while the poor would suffer unemployment.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're ok with this because I'm not.

[ QUOTE ]
In the end though I think that the rich and poor alike would be better off.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's easy for you to say! Throwing people out of work needlessly and arbitrarily is just plain screwy. Causing more hardship on a class of people that are already struggling by definition is arrogant and cruel.

[ QUOTE ]
Reduced demand for oil in the US would help fight the terrorist threat rather drastically because we would no longer need to support foreign countries that are funding the terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something I've brought up several times on this forum. Why anyone thinks that lowering the demand for oil will hurt the Midddle East producers who happen to be the lowest cost producers by a landslide is still a mystery to me. In a battle of less demand thus lower prices the lowest cost producer wins. Reducing demand for oil will increase our dependance on oil from those countries such as Saudi Arabia, not reduce it.

BTW there's this country called Israel in the Middle East that is a close ally of the US that terrorists have vowed to destroy. These terrorists are more or less supported by the countries you mention.

[MMMMMM]

I agree with your overall assessment but disagree that higher taxes on oil or gas are the way to go. Here's why:

1) The widespread adverse impact on our economy from higher gas/oil taxes would cause more economic damage than the amount of revenues thereby raised. This is due to the fact that it would simply make most commerce more expensive and less profitable, and the negative impact would be great, reaching consumers, housing--just about damn near everything.

2) For companies to expend megabucks on R&D, they have to see a pretty clear ROI, a pretty likely profit scenario. Now if oil prices naturally tripled, say, ( as they probably will eventually due to limited supplies) then companies would see other energy sources as more attractive in the long-term and be more willing to invest in R&D--BUT if prices are only artificially high (as with a massive surtax) then companies know that at some point the surtax may be lifted, at which point the price of oil would naturally collapse, leaving them holding a very expensive R&D bag containing little but a horde of angry shareholders.

[MMMMMM]

"I will whisper this so as not to scare the horses : Pssst. --It's high time we slow growth.-- It is a runaway train. Imagine two billion Chinese adopting a car culture identical to the American one. Then do the math."

Just a sidenote but IMO the problem you mention is not primarily of economic growth but rather fundamentally due to population overgrowth.

[Nepa]

Jeez, up over 15 cents in the last week. I don't see the rise stopping until it is over 3 bucks a gallon.

Any here for drillin' in Alaska?

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah I stoped paying attention to how much I am paying now, it hurts to much to look.

[bernie]

Yep, it SUCKS. I just filled the tank of my van. $56. And i do that 2-3 times a week. Obviously, work related.

On top of that, our wonderful state wants to raise the gas tax.

My van has wet dreams of making 34mpg. Ill live vicariously through your car, if you dont mind. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Ill live vicariously through your car, if you dont mind.


[/ QUOTE ]
Go right ahead, although my car is a fierce POS /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[paland]

In California, the price of gas has been over $2.10 for several months now. High gas prices are here to stay, regardless of who is President. It's because of supply and demand. On the Supply side, no new oil fields have been found since 1976. There are only so many dead ancient plants to suck out of the ground.

And on the Demand side, Asia's oil consumption is skyrocketing. And with the current population boom happening again, there doesn't seem to be any relief in sight. The USA has always used an inordinate amount of oil in the past. Well, now other countries are starting to catch up.

We still have about 50-200 years before it all runs out. (Depending on whose estimate you use) But the price will never be low again. Maybe it's time we seriously look at alternatives without the oil companies putting a stop to any new inventions.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I remember about 6 years ago, gas was right around $1 a gallon, people were so excited when it dropped below a $1, then we were happy when it dropped below $1.30. With the way prices are going I think we will all be around $3 a gallon near the end of summer. (I just filled my tank today at $2.19 a gallon, for the cheap stuff /images/graemlins/wink.gif) I dunno I don't think the rising prices are really going to affect anything anyways, I mean our economy is growing right now even with the high gas prices.