Dr Guy Dr Guy

Price of Gas too high - What do you do?

▼

Price of Gas too high - What do you do?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200512/NAT20051222a.html
from JoeUser Forums

That is an interesting question.  When the price of gas was too high, what did you do?

Many bitched and moaned and accused the greedy oil companies of price gouging.  Indeed, Congress wants (another) committee to look into it.  And some of the moaners were actually Republicans.  But alas, most were Green Friendly democrats.  So question number one is: Why?

When the price went through the ceiling, I cut back.  Many did, some could not.  But consumption did fall.  Which means that less bad gasses were getting into the atmosphere, and hence global warming was delayed by a day or two.  So what was the problem there?  For all the green friendly people, what is so bad about high energy prices?  Don't you even listen to your constituency?  Earth friendly, ELF, The Sierra Club, all want that, why don't you?  If you goal is to reduce the green house gasses, jack up the price!  Hell, those quick trips to the market will disappear as will many long vacation drives.

OK, so you are not a green.  But you are all for the poor and do not want them to suffer.  So prices have to stay low.  Now question number 2: How do you ensure low prices?

Answer: Increase supply!  The more available gas, then the producers cannot demand a price, they have to bid for your patronage!  And how do you increase the supply?  Drill for more!  So why are the liberals who pretend they want to help the poor, not for drilling in ANWR?  While that may not reduce the price of oil to 50 cents a gallon, it will do a couple of things.  First, it will moderate the price rise (that is called a cut in Washington-ease - just ask Gideon on his Food Stamp article).  Second, it will increase the supply, which will lead to actual reductions in price.  The poor will be helped!  A perfect solution to one of the poor's problems.  Actually many since oil is the basis for many of life's taken for granted pleasures!

So why are the "For the Poor" liberals not in favor of increasing the supply?

So here we have a nice little quiz.  I would love to hear how we can stop global warming, decrease the price of oil, help the poor, save the environment, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil so we don't have to have another war for oil.

But wait!  We have one more question.  OK, substitutes.  How many are for replacing oil as an energy source?  OK, how many have voted against new Nuclear power plants.  Since the first one built, only one has had a significant accident, and that was in the old USSR.  They are environmentally friendly, so there is no green house gasses.  But, there is that pesky spent uranium!  Yea, that is a mess, right?

OK, so their is solar power and wind power and water power!  But wait!  Strike water power.  That stops fish from fulfilling their manifest destiny.  So how about solar and Wind power? Oh, drat!  There are those ugly windmills and solar panels!  As we heard from  Bobby Jr, better to burn oil, than to despoil a view of a beach!  And those solar panels? Well, on a large scale they have not been commercially feasible yet.  But they are on an individual basis!

So the next question is - How many of the Greens now use solar or wind energy solely?  What? only a handful?  Why how could they be dangerous?  Is that not the be all and end all of their positions?  What?  They still burn fossil fuels? (a misnomer BTW).

OK, Final Question:  Who is bitching about no energy policy?  And how does their voting record stand with the above issues and questions?

And you still vote for them on this issue?

Sorry, one more question.  If you are a green, why are you not producing alternate sources of energy to oil?  Are you so lazy as to let someone else get rich off your ideas, and then blast them for getting rich because they are more ambitious than you?

politics
28,370 views 119 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

You also noted I would impose tax surcharges if they did not achieve the higher mileage requirements.

You will also note (like all your other hypocritical and failed ideas) that only people pay taxes? Surcharge?  Sure!  Watch for it at the pumps.

Do you ever engage brain before fingers?

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'd like gas prices to reach about 5 bucks a gall, just to watch all those SUV fuckers that tailgate me everyday to work cry and sell their fucking gas-guzzlers!

Thank you!  You are honest and willing to stand for your beliefs!  I do not agree with all of them, but actually, this is one I do!  Please, go to the head of your party and throw the hypocrits out!

Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Answer: Increase supply! The more available gas


Wait a sec, if you find that your household expenses are outweighing your income you start by cleaning house and seeing if there is anything you can cut out or cut down.
Then you see if you can find new sources of income.

Put this now in respect to the US and have we really tried to tighten our belts on oil as a country before we are looking for new sources of oil?

You are right and wrong (and perhaps that is my fault).  YOu are right in your answer, but not in the context of that answer.  MY question was meant to be "How do you help the poor", and the answer was as above.  You decrease cost to them.

YOu are right in your response, but then the poor do not have the flexibility to do that, now do they?

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

I did not say the surtax would completely fund the incentives to develop more efficient cars, SUV's etc or to help develop alternate energy sources. I also said things like resending the $12 Billion in tax cuts to the oil companies and by restoring the tax rates on the wealthy to the pre 2001 levels. That would go a long way to providing the needed money for energy and many other things like moving toward a balanced budget.

If Bush had imposed higher mileage requirements in 2001, we would be seeing the benefits today.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

So then I guess everyone else is right! You ARE a one trick pony!

As this was not even a Bush issue, you are right!  And he cant even do that with a modicum of inteligence!

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

That would go a long way to providing the needed money for energy and many other things like moving toward a balanced budget.

Balanced Budget!  AHA!  So not an energy policy, just another liberal tax plan!  Nice try.  I was asking for an energy plan.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are right and wrong (and perhaps that is my fault). YOu are right in your answer, but not in the context of that answer. MY question was meant to be "How do you help the poor", and the answer was as above. You decrease cost to them.YOu are right in your response, but then the poor do not have the flexibility to do that, now do they?


Damn it I got confusedigated when reading the art and missed the main point.
Please disregard my previous statement and I will fall back to my 5 bucks a gallon call.

Also, please understand I hate Bush.
I take no stance in any party.
I hate Bush simply for what he stands for and his actions taken while in office. (And he's dumb as a fucking mule to boot)

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
I gave you an energy plan. You said how to pay for it. Simply drilling in Alaska will not come CLOSE to solving the problem which is to bring our consumption into balance with supplies of energy controlled by the United States.

That will require more effective use of existing supplies and the most important element in that regard is higher gas mileage which Bush has refused to consider. We also need new sources of energy and new types of cars. That is where tax incentives can help. The Bush plan of just giving $12 Billion to the mature oil companies to drill for more oil is not the answer. The profits of the oil companies are more the enough to fund drilling which they must do in order to sell more gasoline to the consumer. The Bush policy has not worked. We are MORE dependent of foreign oil then ever!
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well another idea would be to dramatically improve the public transportation system here in the states around big cities. Maybe I am spoiled by spending 8 years in japan but our public transit system sucks here. Help the poor by getting them to their jobs cheaply, maybe even so cheaply they need no car saving the loan money and insurance.

Drilling only delays the problem
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Much of the added cost to drive our cars and heat our homes goes either to the FAT oil companies or to foreign countries for the oil.


You make it sound like this only started after Bush became President. News flash buddy, this has been going on for a long time. Way before Bush became President.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drilling only delays the problem


I agree. We don't need more oil. We need more education, more sense (specially Col). What we need is to learn to not be so dependent in our own vehicles. Why is it that we can't just walk once in a while to work if it is not so far? Why can't we catch a bus, trolly, train or bicycle to work? Why can't we wake up one hour early to avoid the traffic that makes you waste so much gas when stading in the same spot for more than 10 minutes?

This is mostly our fault, oil companies, car part stores, etc just take advantage of it to make money. And I don't know anyone, who being in a position of profiting from it wouldn't try to make a profit.

The day we become less dependent of our Govt, our cars (for short trips or work), our electricity, we will be able to better ourselves. Well maybe not electricity so much, more like the exagerated equipment some people have that waste too much electricity just to hear a song or 2. You get my point.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
DJBandit

I acknowledged in earlier Blogs and in my book that the Energy dependence goes back to the 1970's and before. The issue for me is that here we have a President and VP that were in the oil business and they have undone some of the progress like Cafe Standards. The Bush/Cheney team with their experience should have been MORE able to help us move toward energy independence. The exact opposite has occurred. All we have done is give MORE to the big oil companies and pay even more too foreign oil producers!
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

Also, please understand I hate Bush.
I take no stance in any party.
I hate Bush simply for what he stands for and his actions taken while in office. (And he's dumb as a fucking mule to boot)

Hate is not always bad.  However if you let it rule your life, then it is bad.  It is not bad to hate Hitler or Stalin.  But dont let it become an obsession.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
The way we have laid out our housing makes it impossible to use our cars less. In fact we must use them more as development moves out further and further. We are moving away from public transportation not closer. We need cars that use less gasoline and that use systems other then oil consuming engines.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

I gave you an energy plan.

No, you gave us a socialistic system, not a plan.  You cannot dictate CAFE standards, because there will always be ways around it.  Where do you think SUVs came from?  If you were a col, then you must be old enough to remember the Wage/Price Freeze of Nixon.  It did not work simply because people did not want it to.  So instead of Buying a T-Bone for$1.99/lb, they created a new cut that was not a T-Bone (still beef tho) for $2.49/lb!

CAFE has been tried.  It failed.  The only reason that cars get better mileage today is that people got tired of paying $1/gal and bought the economical cars.  Impose CAFE standards when the public does not care, and you get the same situation.  Instead of buying a tinker toy, they will buy a new Multi-seat truck or whatever else car companies want to call them.  period.

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well another idea would be to dramatically improve the public transportation system here in the states around big cities. Maybe I am spoiled by spending 8 years in japan but our public transit system sucks here. Help the poor by getting them to their jobs cheaply, maybe even so cheaply they need no car saving the loan money and insurance.

Drilling only delays the problem

Drilling does not solve the problem of consumption.  It does alleviate the problem of foreign dependance.  We have only to look at WWII Japan and Germany or even 73 oil Crises to know that when we hand our safety over to another, we are doomed.  In the end, the only real solution is higher prices.  And that would help mass transit as it would be too costly to drive.

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

You make it sound like this only started after Bush became President. News flash buddy, this has been going on for a long time. Way before Bush became President.

Col One Note just cant seem to take off blinders.  I guess he is going to die and whither away in 3 years.

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

Why can't we catch a bus, trolly, train or bicycle to work? Why can't we wake up one hour early to avoid the traffic that makes you waste so much gas when stading in the same spot for more than 10 minutes?

On the latter, I already do that.  On the former, it is because this was a sparsely (and still is) settled land, and we grew up with the auto.  It will take a massive paradigm shift, and it will not come from any government edict.

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Bush/Cheney team with their experience should have been MORE able to help us move toward energy independence. The exact opposite has occurred.

You might want to take off the blinders and point your eyes at the nay sayers in congress that have REFUSED to even consider an energy plan.  Bush may not have the best plan, but he has A plan.  And congress has less than that.

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
The policies of Bush were designed to help a certain groups of Americans. Those policies have been successful. The wealthy and those that benefit from certain big business like the oil and energy companies have done very well. The net worth of the top 5% is MUCH higher under the Bush policies then even during the 1990's prosperity.

The tax revenue has shifted to a greater percent coming from the middle income families and a smaller percent from the top 5%. The poor are about the same but have been impacted by higher costs, especially health, food and energy with very little increase in their take home pay. The problem is that only a small percent of the total population have benefited to any major extent from these policies!
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Congress considered the first Bush/Cheney plan which was a $30 Plus Billion dollar Christmas tree to mature energy companies and rejected that plan. The most recent bill (the second Bill) has the biggest feature in the $12 Billion of Tax cuts to BIG OIL which Congress did pass. We have yet to see a proposal from Bush/Cheney that addresses the real issues.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hate is not always bad. However if you let it rule your life, then it is bad. It is not bad to hate Hitler or Stalin. But dont let it become an obsession.


Yes Yoda
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
CAFE has been tried. It failed. The only reason that cars get better mileage today is that people got tired of paying $1/gal and bought the economical cars. Impose CAFE standards when the public does not care, and you get the same situation. Instead of buying a tinker toy, they will buy a new Multi-seat truck or whatever else car companies want to call them. period.

Dr I am actually coming round to see your point.
I agree completely with the above statement. We have half the country driving trucks and suvs because it was easy for them to do so. It was easy since gas was so cheap, now everyone is heading the other way and selling the big cars to meet our current conditions.

I think the price of gas does need to be driven up much MORE in order to bring this to a critical mass. But instead of the OIL Companies having record years, impose a new heavy State and Fed Tax on the gas. Use that tax to pay for new public transportation system for states.

This is where I agree with you; let the ship right itself based on the waters around it. You can not leave people to do the right thing. You can have the market effect people into making different choices.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
In your plan, how will the higher cost of gasoline impact inflation and how will the low and middle income families pay the higher prices? What will be the impact on consumption as more and more money goes into energy costs? How will you recover the obscene profits of BIG OIL?
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
I acknowledged in earlier Blogs and in my book that the Energy dependence goes back to the 1970's and before. The issue for me is that here we have a President and VP that were in the oil business and they have undone some of the progress like Cafe Standards. The Bush/Cheney team with their experience should have been MORE able to help us move toward energy independence. The exact opposite has occurred. All we have done is give MORE to the big oil companies and pay even more too foreign oil producers!


The first thing you need to do is stop blaming the Govt for actions we could be taking care of ourselves. Exp: Just because a car dealer sells a car for $20,000 doesn't mean you have to pay that much, there are other choices.

We are not dependent of oil because they make up buy it, we are dependent because we, for some odd reason, can't go to the store to get a few items without driving our cars, even when close by or if a bus can get you there. I have always said that things are only as expensive as people are willing to pay for it. The price of a vehicle should be enough of a clue for that, the moment it leaves the lot it is no longer the price your are or have paid for it, same as jewelry.

If we, the American people, don't get our acts straight first, how can we expect the Govt to do it?

I bet you own a gas eating vehicle. I have an 98 Ford Escort, what do you drive? How many vehicles do you own?