PDA

View Full Version : Next time you're pumping gas at $4/gallon +.....


steelymcmatt
06-13-2008, 08:15 PM
think about this:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/06/020696.php

For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump. Remarkably, the Democrats don't seem to have taken much of a political hit from the current spike in gas prices. Probably that's because most people don't realize how different the two parties' energy policies have been.

ANWR Exploration:
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid:
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration:
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration:
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity:
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the
production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the
production of American-made oil and gas.

RoethlisBURGHer
06-13-2008, 08:50 PM
I think the problem is that so many politicians are on the boards of big oil companies. They receive a nice fat paycheck from the companies, therefore the higher the gas prices the higher the checks.

These companies are making multi-BILLION dollars each QUARTER, but still say they CANNOT AFFORD to lower the prices of gasoline and deisel.

I work for BP, as a customer service representive (fancy name for a gas station attendant). Beleive me, I am not seeing any of these billions of dollars.

Also, please don't yell at the gas station attendants about the gas prices. We don't know when the prices are going up and down and we don't decide what to charge. We just work the register, we're low-man on the totem poll.

Preacher
06-13-2008, 09:45 PM
I think the problem is that so many politicians are on the boards of big oil companies. They receive a nice fat paycheck from the companies, therefore the higher the gas prices the higher the checks.

These companies are making multi-BILLION dollars each QUARTER, but still say they CANNOT AFFORD to lower the prices of gasoline and deisel.

I work for BP, as a customer service representive (fancy name for a gas station attendant). Beleive me, I am not seeing any of these billions of dollars.

Also, please don't yell at the gas station attendants about the gas prices. We don't know when the prices are going up and down and we don't decide what to charge. We just work the register, we're low-man on the totem poll.


When you do not allow an increase in the supply, the demand goes up and so does the price.

You want the price to come down? Inclrease the supply. Otherwise, if you drive down the price without increasing the supply, you will end up with a massive oil shortage.

If that happened... they you would ACTUALLY SEE A BAD ECONOMY.

Not the hiccup we have now.

It sure is amazing how short our memories are.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
06-14-2008, 12:24 AM
or is it that for years the Democrats have been warning us that we need to get away from oil,,,,,,and for years the Republicans have fought it..

Dick Cheney get a monthly check from the oil companies...... He also recently had a meeting with the oil companies and refuses to discuss what went on at the meeting.

I dont believe that it is fair to blame either party that the gas prices have gone so high, I will say that the democrats have been trying to tell us all this for years.

Hopefully we will get away from oil in the future.........as for now it will be interesting to see exactly how high the gas will go before it breaks tha american people.

j-dawg
06-14-2008, 12:03 PM
pshhh.... dems/repubs it doesn't matter. they need each other to exist. this country needs a third, fourth, fifth party. it needs a cohesive energy policy that embraces alternate sources, not just one alternate source, but many. it's amazing how myopic our appointed leaders can be in regards to the problems this country faces. it's also amazing how so many will latch on to one party and defend their worst decisions with rabid fanfare.
there's a huge source of oil off the shores of the Pacific not 10 miles west of where I live. the folks who own muti-million dollar homes, with their beach front views, don't want to see oil decks out there. so it's MUST be the democrat, who represents them, that's at fault.... right? BOTH parties are at fault for not being able to circumvent their differences and create a national energy policy that would be beneficial not to just a few, but the entire nation. a national energy policy that has a thirty year projection, and can't be altered by the elected administration, regardless of their party affiliation. one that would embrace alternate sources of energy, market competition, and cleaner solutions. why this can't be considered or discussed is the VERY reason why we're in this mess.
obama is a huge supporter of nuclear energy. 46% of his home states energy comes from nuclear energy. the industry proclaims itself as clean energy, obama uses their talking points verbatim. he speaks of advances in science that will create the ability to clean the radioactive material a nuclear power plant creates. the science simply does not exist. right now we put the material in drums that will erode in a hundred years, but the material remains dangerous for nearly 500,000 years. is this good energy policy? there's a company that is developing a solar cell that comes in a roll and can be applied in strips on your roof! it's an amazing product. http://www.photovoltaicsolarcells.com/ imagine if everyone were to have a simple product such as this contributing to their households energy demands.

again, i wonder, why do so many bicker about the other parties short commings? it's clear neither have done enough to advance this nations future.

revefsreleets
06-14-2008, 12:43 PM
It's simply not politically viable or expedient in this country to take the strategic view. We, as Americans, want what we want, and we want it right now. Show me a politician who introduces a 30 year plan that will take sacrifices by everyone to accomplish, and I'll show you a politician who loses in a landslide...

Sad but true.

j-dawg
06-14-2008, 01:09 PM
It's simply not politically viable or expedient in this country to take the strategic view. We, as Americans, want what we want, and we want it right now. Show me a politician who introduces a 30 year plan that will take sacrifices by everyone to accomplish, and I'll show you a politician who loses in a landslide...

Sad but true.

Ummm... how 'bout FDR... social security, federal deposit insurance corporation, federal housing administration, security and exchange commision, tenessee valley authority.... all programs still in existence more than seventy years later.

what made such programs come to fruition? a stagnant economy where change and long term direction was imperative... sound familiar?

Atlanta Dan
06-14-2008, 01:39 PM
I work for a cigarette company and we make great profits, but we don't lower prices.

With regard to not cutting prices, it presumably helps to sell a product that is addictive - not saying tobacco companies should not sell it, just saying the buyers are not as sensitive to prices.

TroysBadDawg
06-14-2008, 02:44 PM
It is not that gas is addictive it is a necessity anymore. What is going to happen when people refuse to work at fast food restaurants because they don't make enough to pay for the gas to get back and forth? There are other jobs in the market that are also min. wage jobs that people are going to refuse to work at because they could not afford to. This will lead to more illegals taking the jobs for under the table pay or accepting min. wage because they are living in a garage or in a multifamily dwelling that is supposed to be single family..

TackleMeBen
06-14-2008, 02:58 PM
It is not that gas is addictive it is a necessity anymore. What is going to happen when people refuse to work at fast food restaurants because they don't make enough to pay for the gas to get back and forth? There are other jobs in the market that are also min. wage jobs that people are going to refuse to work at because they could not afford to. This will lead to more illegals taking the jobs for under the table pay or accepting min. wage because they are living in a garage or in a multifamily dwelling that is supposed to be single family..
very good point.:thumbsup:

Godfather
06-14-2008, 04:19 PM
Let's not forget that George W. Bush blocked drilling off the coast of Florida in 2002 as a favor to his brother, who was facing a tough re-election campaign. Now the Cubans and Chicoms are drilling in some of those same waters. :banging:

Godfather
06-14-2008, 04:21 PM
It is not that gas is addictive it is a necessity anymore. What is going to happen when people refuse to work at fast food restaurants because they don't make enough to pay for the gas to get back and forth? There are other jobs in the market that are also min. wage jobs that people are going to refuse to work at because they could not afford to. This will lead to more illegals taking the jobs for under the table pay or accepting min. wage because they are living in a garage or in a multifamily dwelling that is supposed to be single family..

You hit the nail on the head. The cost of having a job is enormous. Not just gas, but child care plus all the government benefits you lose by working instead of sitting on your ass, like paying health insurance instead of receiving Medicaid.

steelymcmatt
06-14-2008, 04:46 PM
I agree everyone has their agenda, but what have the Dems done to help provide a solution?

That's just the point....the Dems talk about it a lot, but don't do anything to help the situation. In fact, just the opposite....when the GOP tries to implement policies to increase supply--ANWR, etc. all the Dems do is fight us on it!

revefsreleets
06-14-2008, 05:18 PM
Ummm... how 'bout FDR... social security, federal deposit insurance corporation, federal housing administration, security and exchange commision, tenessee valley authority.... all programs still in existence more than seventy years later.

what made such programs come to fruition? a stagnant economy where change and long term direction was imperative... sound familiar?
A) FDR was as entrenched in that office as any President since Washington. The circumstances surrounding those times and that situation will never be duplicated.
B) Most of those programs have morphed into things they were never intended to be
C) If FDR would have run first term on a platform of sacrifice and 30 year plans, he'd have been soundly beaten by Herbert Hoover

Steel Buckeye
06-14-2008, 05:20 PM
That's just the point....the Dems talk about it a lot, but don't do anything to help the situation. In fact, just the opposite....when the GOP tries to implement policies to increase supply--ANWR, etc. all the Dems do is fight us on it!

Although I see your point, let's not forget that in order to obtain that oil supply it would require the destruction of wilderness reserves, forests, and parks. Don't forget the damage burning gas does to the atmosphere, I live in Columbus and the air quality gets worse and worse each year. The fact is that Democrats have made a lot of effort to invest in the R&D of cleaner, more affordable fuel such as ethanol and biodiesel, and want to free us of our dependency on oil. The top oil companies have made record profits in the past year, and there has not been one investigation into whether or not there's price gouging. Remember that Dubya and Cheney are in bed with big oil executives and Saudis.

revefsreleets
06-14-2008, 05:32 PM
No offense dude, but almost everything in that paragraph is wrong. There have been almost constant Congressional Hearings on price gouging since 2005, and the matter is heating up again.

Bush put initiatives in place to spend a couple billion on Hydrogen fuel cell research.

ANWR is not going to ruin Alaska. It's like .05% of the protected area that will be affected. That's typically the kind of numbers we are dealing with. It's also naive to ignore sources of the current fuel we need by pegging our hopes on some as yet unknown alternative. We need to address the wolves within our fences before we trek out to fight the ones outside.

Ethanol is not a solution, and it's already losing favor. Biodiesel has severe limitations.

Michael Keller
06-14-2008, 07:33 PM
pshhh.... dems/repubs it doesn't matter. they need each other to exist. this country needs a third, fourth, fifth party. it needs a cohesive energy policy that embraces alternate sources, not just one alternate source, but many. it's amazing how myopic our appointed leaders can be in regards to the problems this country faces. it's also amazing how so many will latch on to one party and defend their worst decisions with rabid fanfare.
there's a huge source of oil off the shores of the Pacific not 10 miles west of where I live. the folks who own muti-million dollar homes, with their beach front views, don't want to see oil decks out there. so it's MUST be the democrat, who represents them, that's at fault.... right? BOTH parties are at fault for not being able to circumvent their differences and create a national energy policy that would be beneficial not to just a few, but the entire nation. a national energy policy that has a thirty year projection, and can't be altered by the elected administration, regardless of their party affiliation. one that would embrace alternate sources of energy, market competition, and cleaner solutions. why this can't be considered or discussed is the VERY reason why we're in this mess.
obama is a huge supporter of nuclear energy. 46% of his home states energy comes from nuclear energy. the industry proclaims itself as clean energy, obama uses their talking points verbatim. he speaks of advances in science that will create the ability to clean the radioactive material a nuclear power plant creates. the science simply does not exist. right now we put the material in drums that will erode in a hundred years, but the material remains dangerous for nearly 500,000 years. is this good energy policy? there's a company that is developing a solar cell that comes in a roll and can be applied in strips on your roof! it's an amazing product. http://www.photovoltaicsolarcells.com/ imagine if everyone were to have a simple product such as this contributing to their households energy demands.

again, i wonder, why do so many bicker about the other parties short commings? it's clear neither have done enough to advance this nations future.

J> Dawg:

I commend you on your absolutely and concisely correct analysis of the problem in your post herein. What disturbs me is that the average American citizen does not see this and they blame the other party.

Steel Buckeye
06-14-2008, 08:08 PM
No offense dude, but almost everything in that paragraph is wrong. There have been almost constant Congressional Hearings on price gouging since 2005, and the matter is heating up again.

Bush put initiatives in place to spend a couple billion on Hydrogen fuel cell research.

ANWR is not going to ruin Alaska. It's like .05% of the protected area that will be affected. That's typically the kind of numbers we are dealing with. It's also naive to ignore sources of the current fuel we need by pegging our hopes on some as yet unknown alternative. We need to address the wolves within our fences before we trek out to fight the ones outside.

Ethanol is not a solution, and it's already losing favor. Biodiesel has severe limitations.

I realize there have been hearings about price gouging, but nothing has been done. It's something the talk about but take no action on. If ANWR was guaranteed to only affect .05% of the area in Alaska I'd be all for it, but whats stopping them from spreading that to a larger area? I think Bush and Cheney would look the other way if the drilling spread out into larger areas and companies violated drilling restrictions. I don't know if you have noticed but the air quality in our large cities is getting worse every year because of all the pollution it causes. Ethanol is a solution, easy to manufacture, and made from corn, a plentiful resource. Engineers in Columbus created biodiesel from restaurant grease and got it to work successfully. Both sources are cleaner and much cheaper than drilling. Do you know how much the biodiesel would cost per gallon, according to the engineers? $0.75 a gallon! I applaud the hydrocell fuel research initiative, but the simple fact is that Bush will bend over backwards for the big oil executives. Roethlisburgher made a great point in his post, the oil companies are making obscene profits, yet he still gets paid a shitty wage.

steelymcmatt
06-15-2008, 08:39 AM
Although I see your point, let's not forget that in order to obtain that oil supply it would require the destruction of wilderness reserves, forests, and parks. Don't forget the damage burning gas does to the atmosphere, I live in Columbus and the air quality gets worse and worse each year. The fact is that Democrats have made a lot of effort to invest in the R&D of cleaner, more affordable fuel such as ethanol and biodiesel, and want to free us of our dependency on oil. The top oil companies have made record profits in the past year, and there has not been one investigation into whether or not there's price gouging. Remember that Dubya and Cheney are in bed with big oil executives and Saudis.

First of all, I agree with you that we need to work on renewablee energy sources, but the key to doing that is to provide incentives both to the manufacurers for developing renewable energy vehicles and to the consumers to purchase them. However in the meantime we need to increase supply. One of the best ways to do that is to drill in the less than 1/2% of anwr to make us less reliant on foreign oil.

fansince'76
06-15-2008, 09:34 AM
Of course, folks who live close can always head to Mexico....

San Diego Drivers Appreciate Mexico's Cheap Gas

San Diego (AP) - If there's pain at the pump in the U.S., Mexico may just have a remedy. A gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in San Diego retails for an average price of $4.61 a gallon. A few miles south, in Tijuana, it's about $2.54 even less if you pay in pesos.

More and more people appear to be taking advantage of the lower price.

"I used to buy exclusively in the U.S. before gas started really going up," said Patrick Garcia, a drama teacher at an elementary school in San Diego who lives in Tijuana. "Since then, I've been buying all my gas in Tijuana."

The lower prices mean a U.S. motorist could save almost $54 filling up a two-year-old Ford F150 pickup with a 26-gallon fuel tank in Mexico.

The differential in diesel is even greater, selling at $5.04 a gallon in San Diego County and $2.20 in Tijuana.

Paul Covarrubias, 26, who lives in Chula Vista and works in construction in San Diego, crosses the border each week just to refuel his dual-cab Ford F-250 pickup.

"I fill it up with diesel in Tijuana for $60," he said. "It would be almost twice that in San Diego."

Gas is cheaper in Mexico because of a government subsidy intended to keep inflationary forces in check.

Still, international gas-buying trips don't make sense for everyone. The wait getting back into the U.S. at the border in Tijuana frequently takes longer than two hours and cars can burn about a gallon of gas for each hour they idle.

Cheap Gas in Mexico (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080615/ap_on_re_us/mexican_gas)

Steel Buckeye
06-15-2008, 10:16 AM
Great post, fansince'76. I really think there is some price gouging going on, but our leaders choose to look the other way, and we all know how useless congress is.

GBMelBlount
06-15-2008, 10:26 AM
If the government wasn't charging a 50 cent per gallon tax and democrats hadn't voted down and VETOED drilling for our own oil the last 20 years, I wouldn't be surprised if we would be paying less than $2 a gallon right now. This oil company "price gouging" crap is little more than a publicity stunt by the right wing media and the likes of Obama who are playing off the ignorance of the average american for political gain.

Godfather
06-15-2008, 03:27 PM
If the government wasn't charging a 50 cent per gallon tax and democrats hadn't voted down and VETOED drilling for our own oil the last 20 years, I wouldn't be surprised if we would be paying less than $2 a gallon right now. This oil company "price gouging" crap is little more than a publicity stunt by the right wing media and the likes of Obama who are playing off the ignorance of the average american for political gain.

Disagree about the $2. We can't reasonably expect gas to stay at $1 forever...most things get more expensive. With gas, worldwide demand is rising, the dollar is weak, and the easy oil has already been harvested. Drilling offshore or using the Alberta oil sands will produce a supply but it's a lot more expensive than traditional drilling methods.

The gasoline tax is supposed to be dedicated to road maintenance. You think the roads are bad in PA now, imagine if that revenue stream gets cut off. There's a lot of waste like bridges to nowhere in Alaska and West Virginia, but you can't do away with the gas tax.

Godfather
06-15-2008, 03:32 PM
First of all, I agree with you that we need to work on renewablee energy sources, but the key to doing that is to provide incentives both to the manufacurers for developing renewable energy vehicles and to the consumers to purchase them. However in the meantime we need to increase supply. One of the best ways to do that is to drill in the less than 1/2% of anwr to make us less reliant on foreign oil.

Gephardt had a plank in his platform about that when he ran for POTUS. He wanted to offer the automakers pollution permit credits for improving fuel efficiency. Those are highly valuable on the open market. Unfortunately Iowa decided to vote for that douchebag from Massachusetts instead, and winning Iowa means a media blowjob for the rest of the campaign. (Lieberman was my first choice but Gephardt was good on this issue.)

GBMelBlount
06-15-2008, 04:24 PM
Disagree about the $2. We can't reasonably expect gas to stay at $1 forever...most things get more expensive. With gas, worldwide demand is rising, the dollar is weak, and the easy oil has already been harvested. Drilling offshore or using the Alberta oil sands will produce a supply but it's a lot more expensive than traditional drilling methods.

The gasoline tax is supposed to be dedicated to road maintenance. You think the roads are bad in PA now, imagine if that revenue stream gets cut off. There's a lot of waste like bridges to nowhere in Alaska and West Virginia, but you can't do away with the gas tax.

I think those are good points Godfather. However, expectations affect oil prices as well. Just the fact that we were going after our own oil / energy would lower prices. I have heard estimates that if the drilling in Anwar alone had been approved in the late 90's that we'd likely be producing over a million barrels of crude oil a day right now. I would also imagine there would be benefits to the regional economies, and the U.S. as a whole, as well. Any way I look at it, I just I think us having more control and direct involvement in our oil production / supplies is a positive thing. $2 a gallon? Wishful thinking perhaps, but I just hate hearing it implied that oil companies "excessive profits" are the main reason we are at $4 / gallon.

MasterOfPuppets
06-15-2008, 05:05 PM
can someone please explain this one too me ???

Historically, diesel has often been cheaper than regular gas. But with the rest of the world -- including fast-growing China and India -- so reliant on diesel, U.S. refiners have increased their exports abroad. While European refiners export gasoline to the United States, some tankers return with diesel to fulfill high demand across the Atlantic. Reduced supplies in the United States mean diesel is, on average, about 65 cents per gallon more expensive than gasoline.

why in the hell are we refining oil for other countries when they say the lack of refining capacity in this country is partially to blame for the high prices ???

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/CheapGasInMissouri.aspx

revefsreleets
06-16-2008, 08:25 AM
Ethanol is no solution.

Biodiesel has problems in cold weather. I don't have a source, but I read somewhere about a whole fleet of vehicles engines blowing up because biodiesel viscosity gets all messed up at a certain low temperature.

I hate apologizing for big oil, but they spend a tremendous amount of money on finding new sources of oil, and it's not exactly cheap to extract and refine it when they do. That's why windfall profit taxes are a bad idea.

It's a very complex argument, and I just want to make sure we don't get mired in oversimplified "solutions' that aren't really solutions at all. I think we can all at least a gree that there is a major problem on our hands, though.

rbryan
06-16-2008, 08:45 AM
The oil companies control this country. As soon as the oil is gone, the alternative energy sources, cars that run on solar, water, whatever.... will miraculously appear. Problem is the same oil companies will be holding the patents on all the new technology. As stated earlier it still boils down to supply and demand. As long as people are lining up to pay $4 gallon for gas to drive to the lake next weekend it doesn't matter what you burn in the tank. If cars run on kool aid in 10 years. A gallon of kool aid will cost $7

You have no recourse at the pump so do what I do....Swear under your breath cursing GBush while vowing to buy a bicycle next week.

GBMelBlount
06-16-2008, 09:12 AM
The oil companies control this country. As soon as the oil is gone, the alternative energy sources, cars that run on solar, water, whatever.... will miraculously appear. Problem is the same oil companies will be holding the patents on all the new technology. As stated earlier it still boils down to supply and demand. As long as people are lining up to pay $4 gallon for gas to drive to the lake next weekend it doesn't matter what you burn in the tank. If cars run on kool aid in 10 years. A gallon of kool aid will cost $7

You have no recourse at the pump so do what I do....Swear under your breath cursing GBush while vowing to buy a bicycle next week.

:shake01: :shake02:

Dino 6 Rings
06-16-2008, 11:02 AM
Its easier to control people when they are broke and hungry. So by keeping us dependant on Foriegn oil, and resources, the politicians in charge can keep feeding us cake instead of allowing us to grow our own crops, and bake our own cake.

Next they take will our freedom of speech, which has already started with Political Correctness and McCain Fiengold. They've taken God out of schools, almost to the point of where its "illegal" or at least wrong to wear anything supporting your religion in school. Is that freedom of Religion?

Open borders allow millions of immigrants into a country that they refuse to assimilate into and instead insist on the citizens of the US to accept them as they are and adapt their foriegn cultures be it South American, African, Eastern European, or Asian.

Next, take their guns so they have no way to fight the oppression. Take nearly 40% of their hard earned money and redistribute the wealth evenly to all those not part of the "ruling class".

Keep the sheep blind to the truth and you can lead them to the wolves while reaping the reward of their wool.

I blame them all. All carreer politicians. Its time for change, and I don't mean a political change, its time for all new politicians. Citizens are supposed to run the government, not the other way around.

revefsreleets
06-16-2008, 06:28 PM
This thread has taken a very distinctive "Art Bell" turn.

I used to believe in the government, then I started reading and learning and paying attention, and that led to me believing in all kinds of conspiracy theories, and I totally bought into that way of thinking.

But I kept reading and learning and paying attention and I realized that conspiracy theories fall prey to the same exact problems that lead people to go looking for and formulating them in the first place. It's the "evil genius coincidence" principle. Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest solution is always best, and the simple solution is that these guys just don't know any better than anyone else, and make mistakes all the time. Conspiracy theories always have everything working out EXACTLY to Satan's plan or whatever, nothing ever goes wrong, and all the conspirators always keep quiet about it.

Please. People are inherently wrong about things almost all the time, and we have a system that encourages obfuscation of errors, not an attempt to fix them, and certainly not a willingness to accept blame for those mistakes. If you tell 10 people a secret, ANY 10 people, 9 of them will spill it within an hour, and the tenth will spill it the next day. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a swing of the pendulum. And it always swings back...

j-dawg
06-19-2008, 11:09 AM
A) FDR was as entrenched in that office as any President since Washington. The circumstances surrounding those times and that situation will never be duplicated.
B) Most of those programs have morphed into things they were never intended to be
C) If FDR would have run first term on a platform of sacrifice and 30 year plans, he'd have been soundly beaten by Herbert Hoover

What?

In rebuttal...

A)I am speaking of FDR's first presidential candidacy and of the relief and reform he campaigned on. The word "entrenched" doesn't apply because he hadn't even served a term yet.

B)The programs certainly have shifted, but their core principles still exist. A testament to their value and worth in an ever changing world. An energy policy reflecting that ideal holds more weight than the current system.

C)Honestly, Hoover didn't have a chance, he even admitted so. A major reason why Roosevelt was elected was because of his talk of change. He spoke of long-term reform throughout his campaign... and continued to speak of his proposals directly to the American public after he was elected through his fireside chats.

I don't understand why you implied sacrifice... it was the Great Depression!

And what would the American people be sacrificing, exactly, if we were to demand an energy policy that relied on many alternative energy sources? I heard more oil drilling off the coast and more nuclear reactors yesterday. Our old friend coal was brought up. A long-term agenda towards infrastructure and furthur development of other, cleaner, readily available technologies was not once mentioned. THAT'S why we need a better energy policy.

revefsreleets
06-19-2008, 12:20 PM
I don't think we are arguing about the same things. I said those circumstances could and never would be repeated. FDR is a horrible example because that was then, and this is now. People made sacrifices back then. If they wanted something, they were disciplined and saved. We've come a long way since then, and it's been the wrong way.

Any politician who proposes a 30 year plan that has Americans making sacrifices in the near-term will be discredited as a wacko and soundly thumped in any election at any level. Is it prudent to think strategically? Of course! Will it ever happen? Almost certainly not.

Thankfully, there are private companies that take the lead in things like this (see: Honda testing out it's first hydrogen fuel cell car). Necessity is the mother of invention, not the government or politicians.

davidgrenier
06-19-2008, 02:12 PM
People made sacrifices back then. If they wanted something, they were disciplined and saved.

This is way off the topic of $4 gas, but you do realize a huge cause of the great depression was the fact that the so-called "roaring 20s" were almost entirely debt-financed. Everyone bought everything for ten cents on the dollar (10% down payment). Sort of like we've been doing for the last decade or so.

Personally, $4 a gallon gas doesn't bother me too much. Everyone who used to look down on me for riding a bike and a scooter now asks me where they can get one.

revefsreleets
06-19-2008, 09:13 PM
This is way off the topic of $4 gas, but you do realize a huge cause of the great depression was the fact that the so-called "roaring 20s" were almost entirely debt-financed. Everyone bought everything for ten cents on the dollar (10% down payment). Sort of like we've been doing for the last decade or so.

Personally, $4 a gallon gas doesn't bother me too much. Everyone who used to look down on me for riding a bike and a scooter now asks me where they can get one.

10%? That's way more than the typical consumer could pony up today. Furthermore, the bank run was fueled by the top 1% and trickled down. There was also no middle class to speak of. Again, then and now can't be compared.

revefsreleets
06-20-2008, 10:08 AM
Related, by going a bit too far IMHO

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/20592964.html

By Rod Dreher



Published on Friday, Jun 20, 2008

DALLAS: You've heard it said that the world is flat — that today, all economics is global. Time to rethink that in light of the global energy crisis. The world is being rerounded, its horizons shrinking. Localism is the new globalism.

Cheap, abundant and accessible fossil fuels allowed us to create a world in which we are relatively unconstrained by geography. That era is passing into history, and it is not likely this process can be reversed.

There is simply not enough oil being extracted quickly or inexpensively enough to meet global demand — nor, in all likelihood, will there be again. This is called peak oil. Last week, economic analysts said Americans have never before spent a greater part of their income on energy costs. The sooner we come to terms with this reality, the sooner we can begin taking serious steps to adapt.

By this fall, chances are John McCain and Barack Obama will be talking more about energy than any other issue. They'll have to. That would be a real change from now.

Peak oil is a far more urgent crisis than climate change, yet its economic and social effects are not even on the candidates' agendas. Every petroleum-dependent aspect of our economy, from the far-flung distribution systems for consumer goods to the daily commute, will be difficult to sustain. The only question is how soon it will happen and how traumatic the transition will be.

National, state and local politicians would be smart to approach it with a series of policy proposals based on the concept of relocalization. It's the idea that in a world of costly energy, most economic and social activity will, of necessity, be local.

A comprehensive domestic energy policy should be geared toward helping regions, cities and neighborhoods depend as little as possible on petroleum. That could mean:

• Dramatically changing zoning restrictions to permit small retailing in residential areas, making it possible for people to walk or bike to do their shopping. Refuse to approve new housing developments unless they are designed for pedestrian accessibility to retail areas.

• Through regulation and tax-code changes, encouraging the development of local farming, so population centers can better afford to feed themselves. Similarly, discouraging the use of arable land for development.

• Government investing in expanding broadband infrastructure to make high-speed Internet access more accessible and affordable. A recent study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation ranked the U.S. 15th out of 30 industrialized countries in terms of broadband performance. Offering tax incentives to companies that use the Internet to decentralize their work force to homes and neighborhood clusters.

Beyond localism, a far-thinking federal energy policy would consider expanding the national rail system as an increasingly cost-effective alternative to air travel. More broadly, federal and state governments also could accelerate energy-smart consumer behavior by offering substantive tax incentives for purchasing solar panels or film, constructing energy-efficient housing or retrofitting existing housing.

When presidential candidates talk about ''energy independence,'' they're telling a half-truth. Yes, the United States is far too dependent on foreign oil. But at our current consumption rate, all proven U.S. reserves, and the estimated reserves in the Arctic, would supply the nation for only a few years. The notion that we will ever be truly energy independent is science fiction.

But we can be more energy secure by learning to live and work in ways that reduce our reliance on oil. ''The American way of life is not up for negotiation,'' Vice President Dick Cheney once said. Oil, however, is a finite resource. And the law of supply and demand is not up for repeal.

No question, it's going to be tough to change. We have no choice, and we have little time. It took the 20th century to build a way of life wholly dependent on cheap and available petroleum. The ground is rapidly giving way beneath our feet. The head of the Russian petro giant Gazprom said last week that he foresees demand driving oil to $250 a barrel by next year.

Our nation is living through a paradigm shift. Ordinary citizens are not waiting for official action and are already working on ideas at the grass roots (www.relocalize.net). We still need imaginative politicians who get what's happening and who can lead, rather than be led by events they scarcely understand.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dreher is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. He can be e-mailed at rdreher@dallasnews.com.

Hammer Of The GODS
06-20-2008, 05:35 PM
Bi-Partisan government is a FAILED experiment! The moment you divide people into two groups and tell them only ONE party gets to be the majority they instantly disagree no matter what the issue! Then WE lose!