• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gas Prices? Who's Fault?

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
YE REAP WHAT YE SOW!!! So?

The Washington Post says that "Politicians Have Little to Offer To Ease Anguish of Gas Prices". Yep, that's the headline in today's Washington Post.

"But the prices are an economic and political problem for which Washington has few, if any, policy remedies that would be effective or practical in the near term, according to many energy experts and elected officials." so says the Post.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer is worried that soaring prices are "taking money out of the hands of working families." I don't use the word "duh" if that is a word. Senator Schumer wants to open up the U.S Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That reserve is specifically for National Security and not for price manipulation. Oh and, it wouldn't effect the price of gasoline anyway. WHY?

1. The federal tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon. Congress can't reduce that because they just passed the largest transportation bill in history. Gotta spend them Democrats and Republicans do. We eat it.

2. Some say the oil companies are gouging. Ok, go get the proof. There is none. Chuck Schumer would be the first to tell you if there was. You know they've been looking for this proof since 1976. Well come on guys, let's get the oil companies. Meanwhile, we eat it.

3. The Post says "Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and others say Bush should take a harder line with Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations, and demand that they release more oil and help push down the price of oil, which hit a record $66 per barrel this week." Hey!!! Is that a Democrat saying a Republican should be a "hard liner"? I'll get to Kerry in a minute while we continue to eat it.

4. Rep. Anne M. Northup (R-Ky.) says, "Pressure Washington to allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The energy policy recently passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush does not permit drilling in the refuge, but Republicans hope to open this area to drilling as part of this year's budget agreement." This won't do any better than John Kerry's idea and while we eat it, I'll explain in a minute.

5. The U.S. Congress and the President could increase the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Standards. That would force auto makers to make more fuel effficient cars. Like those with SUV's will park em and buy another car. It would take years to help the situation if it did and meanwhile, hungry?

HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINES: If we open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as Senator Schumer with the bandaid wants to do or if we MAKE Saudi Arabia pump more oil or if we drill all over the place and get more of our own oil or if we catch the oil companies with their hands in our pockets or if we make cars that get 75 miles to the gallon when they're going uphill - IT WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

WHY? Because Venezuela or Iran will pump less oil? Maybe. Because as we use less of Saudi Arabia's oil they will raise the price? Maybe. But there is one actual reason for high prices while the world's oil supply is providing all we need - yep, no shortage of oil. THE REASON GAS IS SO EXPENSIVE? We don't have enough gas. It's a gas shortage.

In the last 25 years the environmentalists and those they support for political office have stopped any new refineries from being built. Not one new refinery has been proposed, started or built in the last 25 years by the oil companies. The environmentalists along with their political friends who get their money from those environmentalists have made it LEGALLY impossible for our country to have the manufacturing base that creates gasoline in the first place.

So - if you have 3 barrels of oil and the capacity to make gasoline from 3 barrels of oil you make gasoline from 3 barrels of oil. If you have 6 barrels of oil and the capacity to make gasoline from 3 barrels of oil you make gasoline from 3 barrels of oil. Then a hurricane comes along or there is a fire at the refinery or someone blows up an oil pipeline or there is protest in Venezuela (which there is right now) that cuts over 60% of production from that source and what do you get? LESS MONEY IN YOUR POCKET!!!

Wonder what Senator Schumer, the Democrats, the Republicans, the ACLU or the Sierra Club thinks about Exxon building a few more refineries? Anybody know?
:duel :cool: lil weird
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
gordontravels said:
YE REAP WHAT YE SOW!!! So?

The Washington Post says that "Politicians Have Little to Offer To Ease Anguish of Gas Prices". Yep, that's the headline in today's Washington Post.

"But the prices are an economic and political problem for which Washington has few, if any, policy remedies that would be effective or practical in the near term, according to many energy experts and elected officials." so says the Post.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer is worried that soaring prices are "taking money out of the hands of working families." I don't use the word "duh" if that is a word. Senator Schumer wants to open up the U.S Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That reserve is specifically for National Security and not for price manipulation. Oh and, it wouldn't effect the price of gasoline anyway. WHY?

1. The federal tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon. Congress can't reduce that because they just passed the largest transportation bill in history. Gotta spend them Democrats and Republicans do. We eat it.

2. Some say the oil companies are gouging. Ok, go get the proof. There is none. Chuck Schumer would be the first to tell you if there was. You know they've been looking for this proof since 1976. Well come on guys, let's get the oil companies. Meanwhile, we eat it.

3. The Post says "Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and others say Bush should take a harder line with Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations, and demand that they release more oil and help push down the price of oil, which hit a record $66 per barrel this week." Hey!!! Is that a Democrat saying a Republican should be a "hard liner"? I'll get to Kerry in a minute while we continue to eat it.

4. Rep. Anne M. Northup (R-Ky.) says, "Pressure Washington to allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The energy policy recently passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush does not permit drilling in the refuge, but Republicans hope to open this area to drilling as part of this year's budget agreement." This won't do any better than John Kerry's idea and while we eat it, I'll explain in a minute.

5. The U.S. Congress and the President could increase the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Standards. That would force auto makers to make more fuel effficient cars. Like those with SUV's will park em and buy another car. It would take years to help the situation if it did and meanwhile, hungry?

HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINES: If we open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as Senator Schumer with the bandaid wants to do or if we MAKE Saudi Arabia pump more oil or if we drill all over the place and get more of our own oil or if we catch the oil companies with their hands in our pockets or if we make cars that get 75 miles to the gallon when they're going uphill - IT WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

WHY? Because Venezuela or Iran will pump less oil? Maybe. Because as we use less of Saudi Arabia's oil they will raise the price? Maybe. But there is one actual reason for high prices while the world's oil supply is providing all we need - yep, no shortage of oil. THE REASON GAS IS SO EXPENSIVE? We don't have enough gas. It's a gas shortage.

In the last 25 years the environmentalists and those they support for political office have stopped any new refineries from being built. Not one new refinery has been proposed, started or built in the last 25 years by the oil companies. The environmentalists along with their political friends who get their money from those environmentalists have made it LEGALLY impossible for our country to have the manufacturing base that creates gasoline in the first place.

So - if you have 3 barrels of oil and the capacity to make gasoline from 3 barrels of oil you make gasoline from 3 barrels of oil. If you have 6 barrels of oil and the capacity to make gasoline from 3 barrels of oil you make gasoline from 3 barrels of oil. Then a hurricane comes along or there is a fire at the refinery or someone blows up an oil pipeline or there is protest in Venezuela (which there is right now) that cuts over 60% of production from that source and what do you get? LESS MONEY IN YOUR POCKET!!!

Wonder what Senator Schumer, the Democrats, the Republicans, the ACLU or the Sierra Club thinks about Exxon building a few more refineries? Anybody know?
:duel :cool: lil weird


The fact that oil companies are making record profits is somehow lost on you. Also the fact that the record demand for gas from China also escapes you. OPEC says that that is the reason for lifting oil barrel prices.

There is no gas shortage that anyone in America has noticed, what planet are you from? Refineries? I'm not so sure that we need any more.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
KidRocks said:
The fact that oil companies are making record profits is somehow lost on you. Also the fact that the record demand for gas from China also escapes you. OPEC says that that is the reason for lifting oil barrel prices.

There is no gas shortage that anyone in America has noticed, what planet are you from? Refineries? I'm not so sure that we need any more.
Oil companies are private corporations. If you have a problem with free enterprise then you need to petition your representatives to change the free enterprise system. Better yet; if you have a favorite representative, why haven't they done something to limit the free enterprise system? In either case if the oil companies are doing something illegal then you need to ask your government, both Democrats and Republicans. Those guys are in charge.

I am well aware of China right down to their bid for UnoCal. However, I am not aware of OPEC blaming China for the increase of the price of a barrel of oil so I am very interested to read that. Help me out on that one ok?

At this point there is no shortage of gasoline but there is a shortage of refinery capacity and that increases the price of gas. Yes, the price of a barrel of oil also increases or decreases the price but we have no oil shortage, just a limit on the capacity to produce gasoline from it. If we had more refinery capacity and higher inventories of gasoline, then prices would be lower. This is why we have the increase in gasoline prices during the summer driving season and when refineries have to switch to fuel oil for the winter. I hope you understand this because it is really true and it happens every year.

If you aren't sure we need refineries but know that China is the reason for higher oil prices, so say the Saudis, please let me know where to find that. A specific place will do, I don't need a link if it is a regular news or reporting outlet, private or government. Thanks.
:duel :cool: lil weird
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
YE REAP WHAT YE SOW!!! So?

...

1. The federal tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon. Congress can't reduce that because they just passed the largest transportation bill in history. Gotta spend them Democrats and Republicans do. We eat it.

...
I like the way that the gross level of pork being ladled and spending, which since 2000 has grown twice as fast as it did in the 90s, is still the Democracts' fault, as if the Republicans did not control the House, Senate, and White House. As long as there is one Democrat standing in this country, things like spending will always somehow be the Democrats' fault, I guess. Pretty funny.

As far as gas prices, I don't know why President Bush just doesn't do what he criticized Clinton for in 2000. Bush said Clinton was too soft and all he had to do was "jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.”

Bush is president now (believe it or not). Why does he follow his own advice?
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
I like the way that the gross level of pork being ladled and spending, which since 2000 has grown twice as fast as it did in the 90s, is still the Democracts' fault, as if the Republicans did not control the House, Senate, and White House. As long as there is one Democrat standing in this country, things like spending will always somehow be the Democrats' fault, I guess. Pretty funny.

As far as gas prices, I don't know why President Bush just doesn't do what he criticized Clinton for in 2000. Bush said Clinton was too soft and all he had to do was "jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.”

Bush is president now (believe it or not). Why does he follow his own advice?
I believe I said Democrats and Republicans gotta spend. Guess I could go back and look. As long as there are Democrats and Republicans in control they will do what they have to to get re-elected. That means they will spend and spend big time. Why not register Non-Partisan and not let either the Democrats or Republicans know who you are. If you lean Democrat you can vote in their primary or Republican if you want. Sure would take the "pretty funny" out of it.

I'd like to see that Bush criticism of Clinton. Don't remember that so just point me that way and I'll find it. I don't see how anyone could, did you say "jawbone?", OPEC (did Bush really say that, like that exact word?) into doing what they want with their own oil. Don't think it will happen.

I believe President Bush is President but I still want to see that quote. Thanks.
:duel :cool:
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
believe I said Democrats and Republicans gotta spend. Guess I could go back and look. As long as there are Democrats and Republicans in control they will do what they have to to get re-elected. That means they will spend and spend big time. Why not register Non-Partisan and not let either the Democrats or Republicans know who you are. If you lean Democrat you can vote in their primary or Republican if you want. Sure would take the "pretty funny" out of it.

I know you said "Democrats and Republicans," but, sorry, the Democrats are not in control. The Republicans control a majority in the House, the Senate, and they control the White House. So quit trying to blame the Democrats for the lardful spending going on over the last four years.

I'd like to see that Bush criticism of Clinton. Don't remember that so just point me that way and I'll find it. I don't see how anyone could, did you say "jawbone?", OPEC (did Bush really say that, like that exact word?) into doing what they want with their own oil. Don't think it will happen.

I believe President Bush is President but I still want to see that quote. Thanks. xduel :cool:[
Here is the full quote:

What I think the president ought to do is get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots. One reason why the price is so high is because the price of crude oil has been driven up. OPEC has gotten its supply act together and it’s driving the price, like it did in the past. And the president must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price. And if in fact there is collusion amongst big oil, he ought to intercede there as well.


Source: GOP Debate in Manchester NH Jan 26, 2000

And that was when the price of oil was about $25 a barrell.

Do a search for "Bush jawbone opec" and you find hundreds of sources. Here's a couple articles refering to it for your convenience.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/More_George_W__Bush_Energy_+_Oil.htm
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9329&fcategory_desc=Economy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154423,00.html
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
gordontravels said:
YE REAP WHAT YE SOW!!! So?

The Washington Post says that "Politicians Have Little to Offer To Ease Anguish of Gas Prices". Yep, that's the headline in today's Washington Post.

"But the prices are an economic and political problem for which Washington has few, if any, policy remedies that would be effective or practical in the near term, according to many energy experts and elected officials." so says the Post.

The only cure for high prices is high prices. The market will set the proper price. If YOU really want to do something then shop your gas purchases and buy from the cheapest seller. Get a car that uses less and buy products that are less petroleum dependent. But the time to keep current prices down was several years ago. The previous administration failed to propose an energy policy at all. The Dems fought this one for 4 years. It will take 5 - 10 years for any proposals to take effect. Until then we live with what we have.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
I know you said "Democrats and Republicans," but, sorry, the Democrats are not in control. The Republicans control a majority in the House, the Senate, and they control the White House. So quit trying to blame the Democrats for the lardful spending going on over the last four years.
First let me thank you for the full quote and links. Sounds like typical campaign rhetoric to me. Republicans and Democrats are known for that but again, I thank you.

As to the spending over the last four years I don't care who is in control. Democrats and Republicans are in control and you will find both parties voting for and taking home the pork. The best example of this not happening was when we had a Democrat as President and Republicans in control. Those were the days that control meant something.

When anyone puts up Democrats or Republicans as the good guys I stick my finger in the wind symbolically. If you don't think Democrats or Republicans or Republicans or Democrats won't spend everything from your tax dollars beyond what they collect or raid the Social Security System - I refer you to history.

Registering Non-Partisan would be a good start to fix our government. The more the people can distance themselves from these two archaic parties, the sooner they will have to actually consider us. That would be a change, wouldn't it?
:duel :cool:
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
The only cure for high prices is high prices. The market will set the proper price. If YOU really want to do something then shop your gas purchases and buy from the cheapest seller. Get a car that uses less and buy products that are less petroleum dependent. But the time to keep current prices down was several years ago. The previous administration failed to propose an energy policy at all. The Dems fought this one for 4 years. It will take 5 - 10 years for any proposals to take effect. Until then we live with what we have.
The Republicans have controlled one or both houses of Congress since 1994, and both houses and the White House since 2000. But the high cost of gas is all the Dems' fault. I see.

Good thing Gore wasn't elected in 2000 or the price would have it $100 a barrel by now. :roll:

But I agree that high prices themselve will curb demand. That was the proposition of a $.50 a gallon tax on gasoline in 1993 by a Charles Robb, a Democratic senator -- to encourage efficiency through market pressure. That went over real well with the Republicans and their oil interest supporters, as I recall.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
The only cure for high prices is high prices. The market will set the proper price. If YOU really want to do something then shop your gas purchases and buy from the cheapest seller. Get a car that uses less and buy products that are less petroleum dependent. But the time to keep current prices down was several years ago. The previous administration failed to propose an energy policy at all. The Dems fought this one for 4 years. It will take 5 - 10 years for any proposals to take effect. Until then we live with what we have.
Yes, very insightful. :duel :cool:
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
First let me thank you for the full quote and links. Sounds like typical campaign rhetoric to me. Republicans and Democrats are known for that but again, I thank you.

As to the spending over the last four years I don't care who is in control. Democrats and Republicans are in control and you will find both parties voting for and taking home the pork. The best example of this not happening was when we had a Democrat as President and Republicans in control. Those were the days that control meant something.

When anyone puts up Democrats or Republicans as the good guys I stick my finger in the wind symbolically. If you don't think Democrats or Republicans or Republicans or Democrats won't spend everything from your tax dollars beyond what they collect or raid the Social Security System - I refer you to history.

Registering Non-Partisan would be a good start to fix our government. The more the people can distance themselves from these two archaic parties, the sooner they will have to actually consider us. That would be a change, wouldn't it?
:duel :cool:

Fair enough -- I agree that both parties have had their share of unnecesarry spending. I got defensive because I frequently hear Bush apologists argue that the spending increases over the last 4 years are really the Dem's fault.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
Fair enough -- I agree that both parties have had their share of unnecesarry spending. I got defensive because I frequently hear Bush apologists argue that the spending increases over the last 4 years are really the Dem's fault.
And to me that is what political debate is all about. Realizing that it is the party that is more important rather than the individual voters. In this instance, even though we will never agree on everything, we have a meeting of the minds. I also understand why you would be defensive. It isn't one side or the other it is one side and the other.

As long as we realize that we are dealing with politicians then we know the nature of the beast.
:duel :cool:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
The Republicans have controlled one or both houses of Congress since 1994, and both houses and the White House since 2000. But the high cost of gas is all the Dems' fault. I see.
Our lack of an energy policy is. And isn't it the left that is going around saying how unfair it is for the Republicans to get what they want and the the minority MUST have a say so, and that the minority has RIGHTS. Well they filiubustered ANWAR and the energy plan of Bush for 4 years. Clinton threatened to veto anything the Republicans proposed. Yes our lack of an energy policy falls squarely into the lap of the Democrats.

Good thing Gore wasn't elected in 2000 or the price would have it $100 a barrel by now. :roll:
He was the one proposing drastically increasing taxes so you wouldn't buy as much wan't he.


But I agree that high prices themselve will curb demand. That was the proposition of a $.50 a gallon tax on gasoline in 1993 by a Charles Robb, a Democratic senator -- to encourage efficiency through market pressure. That went over real well with the Republicans and their oil interest supporters, as I recall.
No that's NOT the way to do it, the market will set the price and when the market price is too high it will come down. The taxes never come down. but typical liberal solution.
 
Last edited:

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think it is wise to be glad that Al Gore wasn't elected if it is gasoline prices you want to stay down. Read his book "Earth in the Balance". He wanted to do away with the internal combustion engine and have us all on the bus. Problem is that if you live where I live the bus isn't an option and if you take the internal combustion engine out of the picture then those of us that keep you in food like veggies and protein are going to have to charge you $100 for a steak. This is not joking by the way.

No, Al Gore wasn't the man. Still disturbs me that President Bush was the best man. This is what happens when you only have Republicans and Democrats. Sheesh.
:duel :cool:
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
He [Gore] was the one proposing drastically increasing taxes so you wouldn't buy as much wan't he.
I don't recall Gore proposing a tax increase at all. Are you sure you are not mistaking him for Kerry? Or are you talking about a gas tax? I don't know what Gores position on that was.

Iriemon: But I agree that high prices themselve will curb demand. That was the proposition of a $.50 a gallon tax on gasoline in 1993 by a Charles Robb, a Democratic senator -- to encourage efficiency through market pressure. That went over real well with the Republicans and their oil interest supporters, as I recall.
Stinger: No that's NOT the way to do it, the market will set the price and when the market price is too high it will come down. The taxes never come down. but typical liberal solution.
OK, so it is not that the Dems did not propose a plan, it's just the Repubs didn't like the Dems' proposal.

I always like the .50/gal proposal, at least when prices were a buck a gallon. You argue in favor of market forces, but criticize this. But the .50 a gallon tax relies on market forces, which I agree work best for this sort of thing. By making the relative cost of gas higher, market forces would encourage people to use less of it and develop alternative sources of energy, all things we should have been doing starting back in 1993. Plus, it has a built-in safety mechanism -- the tax could be temporarily dropped at times of price spikes (like now) minimizes the effect of oil price fluctuations on the economy. Pluss

The Republican solution is to incentivize production -- the opposite of what we should be doing. Increased production lowers price, and market forces will encourage people to buy more SUVs. That would be fine, but in the end, oil is a limited resource. The faster we use it the sooner we run out. Our incentives should be to use less, not more.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In his book "Earth in the Balance", Al Gore makes it plain that the internal combustion engine must go. He makes the suggestion that if gas is as expensive as it is in Europe we would be forced into a bus or other mass transportation. Want to kill our economy? There are reasons why we are the largest most robust economy in the world. The auto is one of those reasons. Take away the auto and you won't believe how many businesses, communities and jobs will be gone. No, it is good that Al Gore wasn't elected. :duel :cool:
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
In his book "Earth in the Balance", Al Gore makes it plain that the internal combustion engine must go. He makes the suggestion that if gas is as expensive as it is in Europe we would be forced into a bus or other mass transportation. Want to kill our economy? There are reasons why we are the largest most robust economy in the world. The auto is one of those reasons. Take away the auto and you won't believe how many businesses, communities and jobs will be gone. No, it is good that Al Gore wasn't elected. :duel :cool:
I don't remember Gore running on the plank that he would outlaw automobiles, but I didn't read his book so can't comment on it.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
I don't remember Gore running on the plank that he would outlaw automobiles, but I didn't read his book so can't comment on it.
No. In fact Vice President Gore was very quiet about many of his former positions during the 2000 campaign. "Earth in the Balance" is a boring but different read whether you liked him or not. :duel :cool:
 

AliG

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oil is a finite resource, if companies spend a little larger proportion of there revenues on alternative energy. Instead of the trillions of dollars on oil exploration. Then make the new markets competitive and business will be slowly as affective as the oil industry (long term prospect). Realistically this is actually the only option with the demand for oil becoming more, especially with China and India starting rapid industrialisation.

This may be a long-term project and the short-run will be economically difficult for the Western countries,

Additionallyof greater importance than the current budget deficit or the current economic ranking.
two words that Americans dont seem to understand....

Global Warming (El Ninos, mass flooding...etc)

Most Americans i know will laugh...
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re:

Global Warming (El Ninos, mass flooding...etc)

Most Americans i know will laugh...
yOUR RIGHT, :2rofll:

I see some of us are watching too many Day After Tomorrow films. I am sure all of the polution we are causing doesnt help the earth but I am certain we arent going to see our whole upper hemisphere covered in a Intercontinental ice sheild.

Gas Prices? Who's Fault?
The answer is simple, the liberals.

We shouldve went to Iraq for the oil anyway, :lol:

But noooo, you nut cracking liberals complain to Bush not to harvest some of the oil and now you complain to bush for gas prices being too high. :screwy
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
AliG said:
Oil is a finite resource, if companies spend a little larger proportion of there revenues on alternative energy. Instead of the trillions of dollars on oil exploration. Then make the new markets competitive and business will be slowly as affective as the oil industry (long term prospect). Realistically this is actually the only option with the demand for oil becoming more, especially with China and India starting rapid industrialisation.

This may be a long-term project and the short-run will be economically difficult for the Western countries,

Additionallyof greater importance than the current budget deficit or the current economic ranking.
two words that Americans dont seem to understand....

Global Warming (El Ninos, mass flooding...etc)

Most Americans i know will laugh...
Most Americans I know don't laugh about such things whether it's CAFE Standards, global warming or alternative fuels. We, meaning where I live, use both solar and wind power to generate electricity and heat. It cuts our bills quite a bit. A home was just built across the street and it's energy effiency rating is as high as they get. Our appliance manufacturers are far ahead of any country in the world for heating, cooling and refridgeration.

Our auto industry is behind the times big time. If our congress had been thinking about the energy needs and future needs of our country then they would have done something about the gas mileage standards long ago. It's been years since they did anything and that goes for Republicans and Democrats.

Our politicians now take advantage of the actual hate you see here on the forum to divide and try to conquer the other party while we go about our daily business not expecting them to go about theirs. How about the SUV mentality that huge off road vehicles that never go off road will be fun to drive in a cheap gas environment. Don't our congressmen think about these things? The answer is no. Even now I don't hear anyone calling for higher CAFE Standards. Have you?.

Our two party system is a failure if you consider we send them to do a job but most of that job is them getting re-elected. We lose. So?
:duel :cool:
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
But the time to keep current prices down was several years ago. The previous administration failed to propose an energy policy at all. The Dems fought this one for 4 years. It will take 5 - 10 years for any proposals to take effect. Until then we live with what we have.
How is it that DEMOCRATS who have not been in power for more than the last four years are being blamed by you for oil prices but you don't blame Rove and his cronies at all?

The price of oil has increased by more than $30 per barrel since this administration took over. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE, not the Democrats. Rove, that genius who bankrupted oil companies in his youth is now bankrupting our country and oil prices are contributing big time.

How many years have to pass for those of you who are still warped into writing that the Democrats are responsible for Rove's follies? It's getting close to five years since Rove became president and let's recall that the Elephants are king of the jungle in all branches of federal government.

If you don't have the balls to accept responsibility for your actions maybe you need to find a new line of work?
 
Last edited:

AliG

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
Most Americans I know don't laugh about such things whether it's CAFE Standards, global warming or alternative fuels. We, meaning where I live, use both solar and wind power to generate electricity and heat. It cuts our bills quite a bit. A home was just built across the street and it's energy effiency rating is as high as they get. Our appliance manufacturers are far ahead of any country in the world for heating, cooling and refridgeration.

Our auto industry is behind the times big time. If our congress had been thinking about the energy needs and future needs of our country then they would have done something about the gas mileage standards long ago. It's been years since they did anything and that goes for Republicans and Democrats.

Our politicians now take advantage of the actual hate you see here on the forum to divide and try to conquer the other party while we go about our daily business not expecting them to go about theirs. How about the SUV mentality that huge off road vehicles that never go off road will be fun to drive in a cheap gas environment. Don't our congressmen think about these things? The answer is no. Even now I don't hear anyone calling for higher CAFE Standards. Have you?.

Our two party system is a failure if you consider we send them to do a job but most of that job is them getting re-elected. We lose. So?
:duel :cool:
The two party system is a failure, thats a good point that alot of people fail to realise. SUV culture and American culture in general is the problem but again it is the politicans responsiblity. But the main problem is the Bush Admin failure to even recognise global warming at all, Kyoto Protocol speaks volumes (every other country signed, even Russia etc).

Bush Administration is protecting the oil companies obviously, but the oil companies while attempting to still maximise their profits should look for alternative profit maximisers-create a competitive market for solar/electricity...
Price rises are inevitable, finite resources...
 
Last edited:

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
26 X World Champs said:
How is it that DEMOCRATS who have not been in power for more than the last four years are being blamed by you for oil prices but you don't blame Rove and his cronies at all?

The price of oil has increased by more than $30 per barrel since this administration took over. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE, not the Democrats. Rove, that genius who bankrupted oil companies in his youth is now bankrupting our country and oil prices are contributing big time.

How many years have to pass for those of you who are still warped into writing that the Democrats are responsible for Rove's follies? It's getting close to five years since Rove became president and let's recall that the Elephants are king of the jungle in all branches of federal government.

If you don't have the balls to accept responsibility for your actions maybe you need to find a new line of work?
I don't think it is fair to blame the Repubs for the increase in oil prices any more than the Dems. The world price of oil is dominated by factors completely outside the power of the president or congress.

The increase price of oil makes exploration and extraction more feasible and conservation more cost beneficial, both of which take time to effect, unfortunately. In the meantime, we'll be shelling out at the pump.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Originally Posted by Stinger

He [Gore] was the one proposing drastically increasing taxes so you wouldn't buy as much wan't he.



Iriemon said:
I don't recall Gore proposing a tax increase at all. Are you sure you are not mistaking him for Kerry? Or are you talking about a gas tax? I don't know what Gores position on that was.
Read his book.




OK, so it is not that the Dems did not propose a plan, it's just the Repubs didn't like the Dems' proposal.
No they didn't and still don't have a plan. Oh they talk a lot but never put anything into a proposal that can actually be debated and voted on. They say no alot that's about it.

I always like the .50/gal proposal, at least when prices were a buck a gallon. You argue in favor of market forces, but criticize this. But the .50 a gallon tax relies on market forces, which I agree work best for this sort of thing.
Government interference and market forces are two different things. Whenever government gets involved you can bet the market forces will get skewed.

By making the relative cost of gas higher, market forces would encourage people to use less of it and develop alternative sources of energy, all things we should have been doing starting back in 1993.
Alternative sources are being developed and we don't need artifical forces to spur them on. Especially when it's just government trying to get it's hands on more of our money.

Plus, it has a built-in safety mechanism -- the tax could be temporarily dropped at times of price spikes
Dream on.

The Republican solution is to incentivize production -- the opposite of what we should be doing.
It's exactly what we should be doing if only to show OPEC that the higher they go the more like we are to use our own. That forces them to keep thier price down.

Increased production lowers price, and market forces will encourage people to buy more SUVs. That would be fine, but in the end, oil is a limited resource.
Known reserves are higher now than at anytime in history, the more we use the more we find. In fact we will never run out. Can you figure out why?

The faster we use it the sooner we run out. Our incentives should be to use less, not more.
Our incentives should be to put pressure on OPEC to lower price but developing our own. In the mean time our energy companies continue to work on alternate sources which one day will become cost effective and cost effieicent.
 
Top Bottom