GAS...in your area again!!!

[Nitetimes]

I was just told tonight that the terminals just got hit with another $.16 price hike so ours will be jumping up again.

[caseydog]

With Easter and Spring break right around the corner prices are doomed. You Aussies and Europeans need a tea party type complaint. I guess with the next administration we will have more taxes on gas so we will be in trouble for sure.

moving toward $3.

Course with a 40% increase in the price of food in the past month, I guess the oil company's need to keep up.

Um, it's the free market, I'm afraid. The demand for oil is greater than the supply. We were on a course of less use for quite a while, and in the last ten years, we reversed that, with our love of trucks and SUVs. Add to that, China and India are emerging economic powers, and they want more oil, too.

Sooner or later, we will have to come to terms with reality. The world is using more resources than what is available to use.

The only realistic way that I can personally cut my gasoline bill is to use less gasoline. That is the realistic remedy for all of us. In a free economy, you can own a Suburban if you want to, but you gotta' put gasoline in it, and if Americans can't be guaranteed decent Health Care for a reasonable price, why should we expect the government to guarantee us cheap gas.

If gas prices are REALLY getting too high for you, buy a smaller car. Americans sing the praises of "Free Markets" until those free markets bite them in the butt, and then they blame the government.

The era of cheap oil is gone, IMO. Adapt, or whine.

CD

(Before someone brings this up, drilling in ANWR and the Canadian Tar Sands are NOT a cheap solution to this problem -- ANWR is a band-aid, and the tar sands are VERY expensive sources of oil, in multiple ways)

[caseydog]

Lafayette Indiana Sat A.M. $3.16 for regular

In mid December we traded in our 2 Dodge Vans for the Scion XB the wife drives.
Sold my Dakota outright for $2800 and I bought a 2000 Suzuki Esteem from a buddy for $3000.
I have put 6000+ miles on the Suzuki in the last 2 1/2 months . My mileage high was 51+ and a low of 39. Winter warm ups and the heater have dropped the winter mileage but a 45 MPG overall average beats the snot out of 15 MPG. 29000 miles this year will mean my fuel savings will be $3867 So I guess my car purcahse is paying off.
Hated to give up my U.S. made cars it just seemed unpatriotic but ya gotta do what ya gotta do. So each morning I gather my 300 lb frame up and put on my little car and drive the 38 miles to work and take it off when I get there. Its fun to drive and I love the 5 speed manual coupled behind that 1600 cc powerhouse of a 4 popper. So at least Exxon won't get that $3800+ of my money. They will probably have to raise their prices to adjust for the supply and demand changes

[caseydog]

Friday -- 2/29/08
Light, sweet crude for April delivery jumped to a new trading record of $103.05 a barrel in Asian electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange before slipping back to $102.79 a barrel, up 20 cents, midafternoon in Singapore.

Recent rally in oil prices has been driven by the U.S. dollar's weakness and speculative trades amid geopolitical risks. Lower U.S. interest rates tends to weaken the dollar, and crude futures offer a hedge against a falling dollar.

The Japanese government on Friday urged the oil cartel OPEC to increase output to help ease record prices.

"The high crude prices are gradually damaging the global economy. This will damage the economies of oil-producing countries," Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Akira Amari said.

One thing we don't have good information on is whether Middle East oil production has peaked, or if not, if it is near a peak. The Arabs want to make a lot of money, and they want to do it for a long time. They need to watch their production levels to maximize both. Supply and demand at work.

China is making a lot of friends in oil producing countries that increasingly see the US as favoring Israel, AND trying to set up permanent military bases in Iraq to leverage control over Middle East oil. China and Russia are suspicious of us, too. Russia has oil, but China sees us as a threat to their supply of oil in the future -- especially if the US sets up big military bases in Iraq, with huge amounts of hardware and troops -- and maybe even nukes.

Once again, each an every one of us can determine our energy using futures, but what happens to oil prices is out of our hands, and very complex.

[caseydog]

I heard on the news yesterday crude oil is so high because it is traded in US Dollars, and the Dollar is down because of deficit spending. If all that is true, can you imagine what will happen if either one of the current Demo candidates get into office with their promised give-away programs? Of course, they will get the additional money, they say, by doing away with Bush's tax cuts, which will in turn, hurt the economy. Sorry, but it does not look good to me folks.

HUH? We had a annual SURPLUS when a "DEMO" was in the white house. Now, we have record deficits. A Republican president ran us into that sand bar. Bush's tax cuts didn't help anyone except the rich. The economy is a mess WITH those tax cuts, and it was solid for ten years BEFORE them.

And, lets not forget that some IDIOT decided it would be a good idea to invade a oil rich country that was not any threat to us. He used 911 as an excuse to do what he wanted to do before 911, and now the Middle East is in turmoil. That hasn't helped oil prices, has it?

Don't let ideology cloud your view.

[caseydog]

Sorry folks, it was not my objective to kill this thread too.

No problem, I just threw a few logs on the fire.

[Claw]

Electricity is a competitor for oil resources and contributes to increasing demand. Some think the energy market is free trade but in reality it is highly regulated. A more common sense approach to these regulations could help reduce all our energy costs.

There is a great speech by Willian Tucker that I thought was enlightening. The link to the entire speech follows his opening statement:


"There have been a host of debates this year between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. Many of these candidates believe that among our top priorities is to address global warming by reducing carbon emissions. All or most seem to agree that decreasing America’s energy dependence is another. Yet few if any of the candidates have mentioned that nuclear energy—or, as I prefer, terrestrial energy—could serve both these ends. "
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

This will probably kill the thread.

[caseydog]

Electricity is a competitor for oil resources and contributes to increasing demand. Some think the energy market is free trade but in reality it is highly regulated. A more common sense approach to these regulations could help reduce all our energy costs.

There is a great speech by Willian Tucker that I thought was enlightening. The link to the entire speech follows his opening statement:


"There have been a host of debates this year between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. Many of these candidates believe that among our top priorities is to address global warming by reducing carbon emissions. All or most seem to agree that decreasing America’s energy dependence is another. Yet few if any of the candidates have mentioned that nuclear energy—or, as I prefer, terrestrial energy—could serve both these ends. "
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

This will probably kill the thread.

I read the whole thing. He rambles a bit.

I agree with much of it, and especially his comments about coal being more detrimental than nuclear. I also think nuclear has a part to play in a mix of power resources, believe it or not. If it is done thoughtfully and carefully. Nuclear isn't necessarily right for every part of the country.

He tends to blame government for most of our problems, as do most conservatives, and picks out Jimmy Carter as the only president mentioned by name. But, he does rightly trash our sudden attraction to coal, a very dirty energy source, although he does not mention that our current President is playing a major role in that -- since the current president is not a Democrat, I suppose.

Basically, some good points presented in a rather biased manner.

I was surprised to hear him mention the truth that American Oil peaked in the 70s, and that we won't know if World Oil peaks until after it happens. Conservatives usually don't want us to think about that -- drilling in ANWR is supposed to save us, we are often told.

Of course, there is no government regulation that says we can't also conserve energy. Waste not, want not used to be a conservative ideal.

[SteveH]

Bush's tax cuts didn't help anyone except the rich.

Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both singles and married couples. so let's see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html



Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008



Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500



Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500



Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750



Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000



Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750



Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250



If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.

This BS you keep spreading, Caseydog, about the tax cuts being only for the rich, is just that, BS.

[caseydog]

Bush's tax cuts didn't help anyone except the rich.

Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both singles and married couples. so let's see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html



Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008



Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500



Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500



Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750



Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000



Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750



Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250



If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.

This BS you keep spreading, Caseydog, about the tax cuts being only for the rich, is just that, BS.

Is not. (couldn't resist a bit of humor)

But seriously, I didn't say Clinton was the best. I said, we had a balanced budget -- actually, an annual budget surplus -- under Clinton. The record deficits came under Reagan and Bush 2. Simple facts, not mainstream media garbage (which I don't watch or read -- I research).

As for the website you posted, that one opinion. You can easily find others that have a different analysis of the tax cuts, such as http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/fedtax.htm .

Now, assuming YOU got a tax cut. How does it measure against your gasoline bills, which you claimed in your OP were caused by deficit spending? Deficit spending hit new records under a Republican Congress, and our Republican President just released his new budget -- the largest in the history of the nation. Oh, and the cost of the Iraq war which has destabilized the Middle East is "off-budget."

I'm just not seeing how the Democrats are at fault, here, or how a "Demo" in the white house is necessarily going to make things worse. It clearly wasn't worse with the last Democrat in the white house -- we had a budget surplus.

I am a pragmatic person. I don't buy into any ideologies -- political, religious or otherwise. I look at what works, and what doesn't.

I voted FOR Reagan (both times), but when his eight years were done, I was not impressed with "trickle-down" economics, which sounded like a good idea, but didn't pay off as promised.

Later, I voted AGAINST Clinton (both times), and he surprised me with long-running economic growth and a balanced budget.

I voted against Bush the second, because I saw him as a guy who thinks with his gut, when he thinks at all. Turns out, I was right about him. Bad decisions piled on top of bad decisions.

So, I have voted Republican, and voted Democratic. I think that should count for something in the discussion. It's hard to pin me down as a political ideologue unwilling to listen to reason. Yet, any time I challenge a political statement, like I did yours, I'm written off as partisan -- spreading BS, as you put it.

I just call em' as I see em. Kennedy, a Democrat took us into a foolish war, and Clinton, another Democrat gave us a balanced budget. Bush, and a republican congress turned it into a record deficit in two years, in major part due to huge tax cuts passed at the same time as increased spending. Then Bush did what Kennedy did, and took us into a foolish war.

Of course, I just gave Claw a big opportunity to sing the praises of Ron Paul (who is REALLY a libertarian in Republican clothing). He stands only a slightly better chance of being President as Ralph Nader, so I'm afraid he's irrelevant. Sorry, Claw, but like I said, I call em' as I see em'.

[SteveH]

I didn't say the price of gassoline was caused by deficit spending, I said the devalueation of the dollar was caused by deficit spending, and I do not support it. I do not support Bush on all things either.

And about Slick Willie's ballanced budget...everyone knows he ballanced the budget by decimating our military. Part of what has cost so much under Bush is building the military back up the point were we can defend ourselves.

But the thing that irks me is you and a lot of others taking the media's claim that the tax cuts help only the rich is just false....they helped everyone that pays taxes. The poor were not helped at all, that is true, because the poor already did not pay taxes. How can you give a cut to someone who pays nothing. I stand my my statement, it is BS!

[PaulC]

Well said Steve

Cheers
Paul

[caseydog]

Well, using terms like "Slick Willie" kind of indicates to me that there is a political bias to your claims, Steve. Nothing wrong with that, but it is hard for me to relate to. Remember, I didn't even vote for the guy -- I just hate to see him vilified unfairly.

BTW, our military spending is more than military spending of all other countries of the world -- combined. Even if one were to cut it in half, we'd still be the biggest and strongest military on earth. I hardly think that what Clinton did could be characterized as "decimated".

Here are some interesting charts on Military spending.

http://www.heartheissues.com/clinton-military.html

Well, with that, I'll bow out. Seems we are attracting some cheerleaders, which will lead to ugliness, which will lead to moderators killing the thread..

Feel free to have the last word.

[PaulC]

Well said CD.

Cheers
Paul

No bias here Just found the debate interesting

[caseydog]

Well said CD.

Cheers
Paul

No bias here Just found the debate interesting

Like most Americans, I don't follow Australian news much. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. Are Aussie politics as crazy as ours? Crazier?

On topic, what's the history of gas prices there over the last few decades?